Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2008

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 2008[edit]

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:47, 30 June 2008 [1].

Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightdreary (talk)


I'm nominating this article for FA to see if other editors feel that it is ready. I'm not convinced myself but I'm sure this review will, if nothing else, encourage its improvement. Thanks, as always! --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Links checked out with the link checker tool, other sources look okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for dropping in, Ealdgyth. The first link you mention is to a peer-reviewed scholarly publication; certainly not a newsletter! The second is not the most reliable source, but it only serves as verification; there is already another supportive footnote. It could be removed, I suppose, if other editors think it should be. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. The title of the publication is given as "Poe Newsletter" (grins). (current ref 30) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you looked again, you might notice that the "Poe Newsletter" was renamed to Poe Studies, a publication of the Edgar Allan Poe Society of Baltimore and the Washington State University Press. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping with that. I'll leave the other for other reviewers to decide if it's needed/not needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm torn on this one myself. I'm not sure if the claim needs further substantiation but, if so, I can certainly look for an alternative to the current one. I'm glad you brought it up, Ealdgyth. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the poeperplex a collection of student papers per this? As this is student work, I see no reason to cite it. Awadewit (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I've gone ahead and removed it entirely. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks pretty well written; it was a very interesting read throughout. Gary King (talk) 06:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Per WP:MOSDASH, don't offset quotes of less than 4 lines - there is a shorter one in the Illness section.
I assume you meant the blockquote? I never knew what the cut-off length was for this (and I couldn't find it in my cursory search of that page you linked) but I made the change. No problem. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph on Virginia's appearance seems a bit out of place, but I am unsure where to suggest it be moved.
I'd love further advice on this from any other editors. It was originally its own section but I tried to pull it into the main part of the article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph beginning "While dying, Virginia asked her mother ..." does not flow very well. It seems to be a hodgepodge of different ideas stuck together (and two sentences in a row begin "She provided Virginia with"
I tried to fix this. Hope I did okay. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Virginia also showed Poe a letter she had concealed for years from Louisa Patterson," - makes it sound like she concealed the letter from Louisa Patterson. Why did Virginia conceal this from Poe? Was Virginia also trying to keep Poe from his father?
This was incredibly unclear. It's not that she hid it but that she tucked it away. Wording was awful but I think it's much-improved. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1875, the same year in which Virginia's body was reburied, the cemetery in which she lay was destroyed and her remains were almost forgotten" - was it the new or old cemetery that was destroyed? How was the cemetery destroyed? (Was this Westminster Hall?) How long were the bones in a box under the bed?
That should have been the same year that Edgar was reburied, not Virginia. The bones in a box thing isn't clear in any of the sources I found, as far as length of time. It looks to be about two years, though. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frances Osgood or Frances Sargent Osgodd? She is referred to both ways int he article
Not sure why that's so bad (how often should her middle name be repeated?) but I can change it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""hurrying her to a premature grave, " - I presume the "her" here is Virginia?
I tried to clarify this. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "moved to New York City by boat" - the by boat reference seems odd - can this be removed?

Karanacs (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the boat reference would necessitate the removal of the whole reference to "The Oblong Box", as that's sort of the point. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine wasnt going to throw away her bones, Edgar and Dennis were actually really good friends and was buried in the Valentine tomb, Para about half down page. "He would have rambled on, but I left him and went back to stand silent awhile over the bed of earth where the three so dear to each other sleep side by side. Mrs. Clemm was buried here in 1971; and the body of Virginia, brought from Fordham, where it had lain in the Valentine vault for thirty-seven years, placed beside them on the seventy-sixth anniversary of Poe’s birth, January 19th, 1885. At this ceremony, most solemn and impressive, there were present besides the officiating minister, Rev. J. S. B. Hodges, rector of St. Paul’s, and many friends and relatives of the family, Hon. Luther Marsh, President of the Park Commission, New York, and William Fearing Gill, the biographer of Poe, and the first to locate the time and place of his birth. “It is a remarkable incident that Mr. Dennis Valentine, who officiated at the sepulture of Virginia Poe in 1848, should deliver her relics to Mr. Gill in Person, and that George Spence, who conducted the burial of Poe in 1848, and afterward his re-interment under the monument in 1875, should also, as the official sexton of the Westminster Church, be called upon to witness the last rites offered to all that remains of his wife now that she is laid at his side after a long separation.” http://www.eapoe.org/papers/misc1851/18910401.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by JValentine13 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to suggest that Valentine was throwing any bones away. As I understand it, the owners of the cemetery had sold the land and it was going to be developed. The officiators of the burial ground, unable to find next of kin, were going to dispose of Virginia's bones - but William Fearing Gill, as he claims, walked onto the scene at just the right time and claimed them himself. I have not seen sources that suggest that Valentine handed her bones to Gill directly (it would be quite odd; Gill was and is considered a bit of a whacko). The article does indeed state that Virginia was originally buried in the Valentine tomb, so no worries there. Your source is more than a little off - for example, Poe was not buried in 1848 (it would be very rude, considering he was not yet dead). I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take from this comment, so feel free to help me out. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support:
  • I enjoyed the article and learned a lot about Poe. I found it quite interesting. --Moni3 (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why are you using her middle name in the title? Surely she's usually called Virginia, not Virginia Eliza? (If this is moved, leave the first line as it is.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one that originally created the article so I'm not sure what the justification was for the title. If it was me, I'd have called it Virginia Clemm as that's how many biographers and scholars refer to her, mostly to keep her distinct from Poe. I'm sure the article could easily be renamed, but I personally don't see much of a problem with this either way. I'd welcome other comments. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support A thorough discussion of Virginia Poe and her relationship with Edgar Allan Poe - thank you! I learned some fascinating details about the Poe family while reading this article. Just some minor details:

I'm not 100% sure on this one as I didn't take the picture myself but I believe it is a blown up reproduction at the Edgar Allan Poe Museum (Richmond). I will contact the original uploader and see if he/she is still active and can give further info. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. I think her theory is questionable at best, but she does have a book with this (and many other theories on Poe) coming out soon which lends some credibility to it all. Until I see another scholar corroborate her story, though, I don't think the information merits inclusion here beyond the external link. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still feel that referring to the subject by her first name only ("Virginia") and the poet by his last name ("Poe") replicates the infantilizing attitude that Poe used towards his wife. I don't think we should do this, as an encyclopedia. I would suggest following the system used at Mary Shelley or at Zelda Fitzgerald.
I'm very torn on this one myself. I certainly don't mean to demean Virginia myself (though, oddly, colloquially, I do refer to them as "Virginia" and "Poe"). I considered your similar suggestion earlier and started making the change but stopped myself; I don't remember why. I will revisit the idea. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the featured topic coming into focus! Awadewit (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your thoughtful review and several copy edits. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:47, 30 June 2008 [2].

Strapping Young Lad[edit]

previous FAC (18:14, 29 April 2008)


Self-nominator Well, here goes nothing. I did my best to find all the necessary references, and improve the article as a whole. Gocsa (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I am satisfied with the prose carried over from the previous nom. Additionally, I was one of the editors who nitpicked over the sources until Gocsa was about to start throwing tomatoes at me, and I'm satisfied with them as well. I helped look up some more reliable sources and I believe anything questionable has been sourced to a reliable source. There are a few borderline sources but they are not backing up anything major so I'm willing to include them on the "reliable" side of the border. I encourage editors who oppose based on sources to make it actionable by calling out which specific sources you are questioning. I will work with Gocsa to find alternate sources as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that's good for that particular source. Still some more which concern me, and some prose issues which I'll point out tomorrow. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Well written and sourced article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support I've been satisfied with this article since the peer review. Burningclean [speak] 05:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my support last time and no outstanding issues here. giggy (:O) 10:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, The article is well written, dynamic, objective and with beautiful layout. Cannibaloki 17:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My only problem, as nominator:), is ref2, the radio transcript from the fan site, is it possible to cite it using Template:Cite episode? I only have the month, and year of the interview, the name of the programme, the radio, and the interviewer, maybe this is enough. Gocsa (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:47, 30 June 2008 [3].

Terry Sanford[edit]

Self-nominator: — Rlevse • Talk •


I found this article, liked it and spend a lot of time improving it with the help of others--making me a major contributor and self-nom. Sanford was a educator and politician from North Carolina. ... — Rlevse • Talk • 21:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Links checked out with the link checker tool, other sources look okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change politicalgraveyard to one that you didn't object to that covers same things. Changed Emporis to official GSA ref. Working on other two. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All four may be reliable, you know. (Although I have serious doubts about political graveyard ...) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers in our campaigns match other sources but it displays it with percents and in chart form, so I think that's okay. 4president reproduces his campaign brochure in word form, it's not found elsewhere, so I think that's okay two. Can we keep those two? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the 4president one out for others to decide for themselves (I have a small quibble about copyright issues with it also, want one of the copyright gurus to say it's clear to link to it...) The other, maybe use it as an external link/secondary source and link to the numbers in books also? The main concern with ourcampaigns is that they don't seem to cite where they get their numbers (although if I missed it, please point out my blindness to me, it's been a long hot day in the sun here, so I'm perfectly capable of missing things...) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I used one of the books for the 4presidnet ref and moved it to external links. The same numbers in ourcampaigns ref are all over the web and so far it looks like it's the best ref--it's even used as a ref by other sites. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, used by any major news companies? If so, that'd help prove its reliability, I'd think. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done with all. Found one from TIME that uses a part of the data, added as a second ref. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The wikilinks to stuff like 1940s isn't really necessary
  • "Driven by his belief that a person could accomplish anything with a good education" - source?
  • Time Magazine needs italics in all references
  • "Sanford was Kennedy's choice for vice president on the 1964 Democratic ticket, had Kennedy lived" - this reads awkwardly, perhaps try "Sanford would have been Kennedy's choice... had he lived"?

(Covers up to the Senate career section...) giggy (:O) 03:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Did a read through the rest and nothing of issue came up. —Giggy 06:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments. Overall, the article looks well-written. Have you checked out the book that is listed in the Further Reading that is specifically about him to see if it would have any relevant information that isn't already in the article? Other comments:
    • I don't like this sentence During World War II he enlisted as a private in the US Army, parachuted into France in combat with the 517th Parachute Infantry Regiment, was awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart, fought in the Battle of the Bulge, attained the rank of First Lieutenant, and was discharged in 1946. I think it is trying to cram too many events into one sentence which minimizes their impact a bit. Just separating it into two or three sentences would likely be fine.
    • I would include his party affilitation when first discussing his state offices; that way people who don't read the lead will still know.
    • This is a very weird citation format ,[7]:157, 194, 247, 257–258 [10] - is that intentional?
    • University of North Carolina is wikilinked the third time it is referred to; may be better to do so at the first reference
    • It might be wise to include a very brief description of what the Governor's School of North Carolina is - I've never heard of anything like that and it is interesting

Karanacs (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. As for the footnotes with numbers, that is intentional. See {{rp}} as to why. Thanks for improvement tips. I have not found a copy of the book in further reading. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen that citation format; thanks for educating me. Karanacs (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article. There were some 1a issues, but after copyediting the article myself, these concerns have been addressed. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Glad you enjoyed it. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, and please address all my inline comments. There's about 5-10 still left in the article. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just started looking at that. Should be done soon. FYI, I only see two left. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I answered the inlines and also made a "Books by Terry Sanford" section. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answered Sandy's postwar concern too. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:27, 29 June 2008 [4].

Trial by Jury[edit]

Nominator(s): Shoemaker's Holiday, Ssilvers


This article is the latest concentrated drive by WP:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan. Over the last month or so, over two dozen published sources have been consulted - the lengthy bibliography section will give some idea of this; and all, or almost all, have been newly-consulted or reviewed during this drive (as well as a few others that, for whatever reason, never got cited, and thus aren't mentioned). While I can't guarantee that every source was used, I think that most people who knew about Gilbert and Sullivan would not find any substantial omissions, save, perhaps, that some of the sources, such as Arthur Jacobs, that we consulted late in the process didn't get cited as much as they would if they had been consulted earlier, simply due to overlap.

A great number of people have helped us in his process, and I apologise if I miss anyone out, but I'd like to thank User:Finetooth for an excellent MOS-check and copyedit, all our peer-reviewers, Marc Shepherd, who came back from retirement to assist us, and many, many others. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC) [Nomination went live on 06:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Co-nomination: This is the first article on any of the famous Gilbert and Sullivan operas to be nominated for FA, and it will serve as a model for what the others might look like, so it is important to WP:G&S. I agree that the research for the article has been thorough, and I think the article is comprehensive. Shoemaker's Holdiday and I, as well as Marc Shepherd and some others who have assisted us are familiar with the literature about Gilbert and Sullivan and their operas. The prose in the article has been vetted by many readers, although I am sure that FA reviewers will have further helpful suggestions. In addition to the editors mentioned by Shoe, User:Yllosubmarine, User:Awadewit, User:Tim riley and many others have assisted us. We look forward to resolving any comments raised in the FA process. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC) [Nomination went live on 06:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Moved to talk page, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain how Marc Shepherd meets WP:SPS, specifically: "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. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Marc Shepherd wrote quite a number of scholarly articles - I don't have a list to hand of his most major publications, but here's a google scholar link: [5] I think, therefore, that he is a recognised scholar in the field, even if not one of the really big ones. As such, he can be trusted to get the lists right, and that's all we really need to trust him for. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The google links you provided don't answer my query, and Shepherd is being used to source critical opinion:
    • Of the recordings by the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company, those from 1927 and 1964 have been well-received. The 1961 Sargent and the 1995 Mackerras recordings are also admired.[120]
    • Also, that critical opinion isn't supported by the citation, and isn't attributed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the citation does support the critical opinion, based on the site's star rating system. Shoemaker is wrong: I wrote the section recently; it is not "legacy text". Isn't it better for the article to make some qualitative comparisons among the various recordings than to leave the reader to select one at random from the list? There is no other source on the web OR ELSEWHERE that provides this information. Shepherd's star ratings are the most useful comparative assessment in the world for G&S recordings: See below. As for attribution, that would be easy enough to add. I suggest that we reinstate the description about which recordings are recommended. Also, I note that Marc Shepherd has not contributed more than a couple edits to this article in the past year, and those were at our request simply to add references to the Rollins and Witts books, with which he is not affiliated. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, deleted. I trust the simple list of recordings is acceptable? I think what happened is that we got a bit of legacy text that was meant to have gotten better cited but ended up being missed because noone sslapped a citation needed on the first, uncited part. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is not correct, Shoe. It was cited; Sandy is saying that the cite does not support the conclusion. See above. I have put the text back in and added the attribution that I think Sandy is looking for. Let's discuss how to clarify the Discography's status as a reliable source. This is very important to all the G&S articles. There is no more difinitive source for information, including comparative assessments, of recordings of G&S in the world. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without a doubt, Shepherd's discography is the most complete and best researched discography of Gilbert and Sullivan in the world. It was compiled over a period of many years and includes reviews by dozens of Gilbert and Sullivan experts beside Shepherd. Every Gilbert and Sullivan expert in the world knows Marc Shepherd. He is an editor and consultant for the Broude Brothers critical editions of the Gilbert and Sullivan scores. Broude has published the only critical edition of Trial by Jury. Shepherd has published the best modern-engraving score in the world of The Grand Duke, and has published numerous articles on Gilbert and Sullivan in the various Gilbert and Sullivan specialty publications, such as GASBAG, The Palace Peeper, The Trumpet Bray and elsewhere. He is attributed as an expert or consultant on dozens, if not hundreds of books and articles about G&S and related subjects. See, e.g., "From First Baseman to Primo Basso: The Odd Saga of the Original Pirate King (Tra La!)", NINE: A Journal of Baseball History and Culture - Volume 15, Number 2, Spring 2007. People writing about G&S usually say this about G&S sources: "Two websites are of great value - Marc Shepherd's exhaustively annotated discography and the vast resources of Jim Farron and Paul Howarth's Gilbert and Sullivan Archive" [6]. One could go on. I disagree with Shoemaker: Marc Shephered is a major Gilbert and Sullivan authority, not a minor one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not mean to disparage Shepherd: I was not aware of all his work, but had the impression he had only writen quite a lot of insightful journal articles, but nothing pulling together his work into a large-scale form, such as a book. However, this was in ignorance of his role on the Broude scholarly editions of scores - heavily researched scholarly editions of Gilbert and Sullivan. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
< Discussion moved to the talk page here for sorting. > SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Book questions and lots of WP:SPS "evidence" left for Ealdgyth on the talk page (I don't know book publishers as well as Ealdgyth does). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A summary of Marc Shepherd as a reliable source is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Marc Shepherd's Gilbert and Sullivan Discography. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Please don't run the author/publisher/other bibliographic information into the link title of web sources, it makes it hard to make out the title separate from the rest of the information. You do this with current res 83, 46, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 61.
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the ones you listed, Ealdgyth, although I think you're mistaken about ref 93; The Gondoliers is part of the title, not the publisher. Was there something else wrong with it? Let me know if there are additional ones. María (habla conmigo) 16:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support: I don't think I helped with this one, but thank you nonetheless for the shoutout. :) This was a very interesting read and I can see how it would help frame the other G&S articles to come. I'll be more than willing to support after a few things have been addressed:
  • The lead's timeline is confusing. The play's genesis is mentioned after its production history; shouldn't it be the other way around? There's also no mention of the recordings or benefit productions. Also, should it be mentioned in the lead when the productions stopped or when it was removed from the repertory?
  • I have tried to simplify the first two paragraphs of the Lead, although I think it is important to mention the date of the show's premiere at the top. I also mentioned the benefits and recordings and clarified that the piece is still being widely performed. I also added a paragraph in the Production and Aftermath section to amplify the more "modern" information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the added information and I can live with the wonky timeline. María (habla conmigo) 12:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a fan of specific quotes in the lead lest they be notable in their own right. I don't think Kurt Gänzl's quote ("probably the most successful British one-act operetta of all time") appears in the body, either, so maybe the sentiment could just be paraphrased? "It's considered to probably be the most successful...?"
  • I moved Gänzl's quote down to the Production and Aftermath section, but I think that trying to say the same thing in the intro would be a controversial statement that requires citation. Perhaps the Lead is enthusiastic enough without it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arthur Sullivan and W. S. Gilbert are mentioned by their full names in the lead, but from the very beginning in the body they're simply referred to as "Sullivan" and "Gilbert". Remember, pretend the lead doesn't exist and start with the basics.
  • OK, I linked them again below and used their full names again. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section "Production and aftermath" may be a little misleading since it's about the initial production, yes? Should the section header be made more explicit?
  • Hmmm. It's about the initial production and then discusses how the piece became very popular and what happened to G&S afterwards. What would you suggest? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, looking at it today, it doesn't bother me as much. If no one else finds issue with it, just disregard. María (habla conmigo) 12:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Analysis and innovations" is a huge section; is there any way to split it? Music innovations, production innovations?
  • LOL! This has gone back and forth a few times. Shoe? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best split is probably splitting off the last two paragraphs [the Trial-specific material] from the rest [which is a forward-looking discussion comparing the innovations with later G&S operas. I'm not sure about it, though, as it's hard to set out the scope, and, by necessity, the comparison with later works also discusses Trial a lot. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried several methods and finally decided on three subheadings. "How say you"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the little things in life that get to me: in the refs, is it Stedman, pp. 120–21. (ref 9, only one example) with a period or Stedman, pp. 99–127 (4) without? Also, is it Bradley, p. 36, 38 (132) with "p." or Ainger, pp. 380–81 (119) with "pp."?
  • We agreed "without" the period. Also pp. if more than one are named. Thanks! I'll go thru and fix. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it looks great! I made a handful of very minor edits, mostly regarding punctuation. Hope you don't mind. María (habla conmigo) 14:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Support. All changes were made or explained away to my satisfaction. Great work, guys! María (habla conmigo) 20:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Gary King (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent work. It's come a long way since I looked at it last.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's incredibly thorough and well-written. I'm impressed. MarianKroy (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing Finetooth, I must say that I added one link to the article and made a couple suggestions during its nomination for "Good Article" status. MarianKroy (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very nicely done and a delight to work on. In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I did some proofreading of the article, but it didn't need much. Finetooth (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I did a GA review of this article and it is definitely improved since then. The article has been reorganized a bit and it definitely flows better. Without a doubt, it is well-written, well-researched, and comprehensive. Here are my little nitpicks:
  • [[:Image:Trial by Jury - So I fell in love with a rich attorney's elderly ugly daughter.png]] and Image:Trial by Jury Usher.jpg both appear to be from books - the full publication of those books should be on the image description pages.
Done. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think the "Reception" section is quote-heavy. I am thinking one quote per paragraph, perhaps? :) Ok, I'll be less Draconian, two?
  • These would, from this point forward, provide a grounding point for romantic characters in each of the Savoy operas, providing an introspective scene in which such characters stop and consider life, in contrast to the foolishness of the surrounding scenes. - repetition of "provide".
Fixed Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)
  • Like both of the tenor's arias in Trial by Jury, tenor arias in later Savoy operas were set in 6/8 time so frequently... - Perhaps link 6/8 time for the non-musically inclined?
Fixed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Crowther explains, Gilbert combines his criticisms with comic entertainment, which renders them more palatable, while at the same time underlining their truth: "By laughing at a joke you show that you accept its premise. - First mention of Crowther needs to tell the reader who he is.
Fixed. There was a couple refshuffles, and it appears we missed moving a bit of attribution, now provided.
  • The following tables show the casts of the principal original productions and D'Oyly Carte companies at approximately 10-year intervals through to the 1975 centenary season - I'm still unconvinced that all of these cast lists are necessary. The originals, yes, but why at ten-year intervals? This just seems arbitrary to me.
The D'Oyly Carte Opera Company split up when I was two, so I'm not fully conversant, but, as I understand it, the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company was, perforce, the focus of a great deal of love for Gilbert and Sullivan up until their breakup. As such, each generation of performers gained their fans, and, as they had an almost ridiculously rigid control on performances in Britain - not following their prompt-books could result in you never gaining permission to perform the opera again - they proved hugely significant to generations of Gilbert and Sullivan fans, directors, etc. In another thirty years, these cast lists may be less important, but the works only left copyright (and thus the rigid control) in 1961 (Life +50 was then the rule, I believe), and thus they are still significant. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The DOC did not license any other professional G&S companies in Britain, and so it was the only authorized professional G&S company in Britain until 1961. Even after this, they continued to be the premiere G&S company in the world until their dissolution in 1982. They toured the shows constantly in Britain during the creators' lifetimes and thereafter and performed frequent seasons in London, as well as touring the world. Their performers also made the only licensed recordings of G&S until 1961 and their recordings continued to be in high demand after that. So these performers are well known to modern fans. Indeed, many of the vintage recordings with the famous performers shown in these tables have recently been re-released. So, for some of our readers, these tables will be of interest, I think. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to sound contrarian, but I don't think these answers are really addressing my point. I asked why ten-year intervals. I'm sure this company is important, but I am not sure that these particular performances are. Why not five-year intervals? Why not seven? I'm just not convinced that the process of selection of these cast lists was anything other than arbitrary. Awadewit (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Over to Ssilvers, he's our expert on performers. With the exception of a few prominent members of the original casts, I am completely ignorant about them.Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the historical casts, it appeared from the sources that there was major turnover in casts about every 10 years, and that by selecting this interval, we would be able to show the names of most of the famous performers. If we had selected five years, there would be a lot of repetition and hardly any new notable names would appear. If we had selected 20 years, many of the famous names would be missed. So it seemed the best choice. This was true not only for Trial but for all the G&S operas. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - could we explain that to the reader of the article? :) Awadewit (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I added a sentence above the tables. Perhaps it would be better as a footnote, though? It seems to me that only a select few eagle-eyed readers will wonder about this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sentence is fine, but if you would prefer a footnote, that is fine, too. Awadewit (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a thoroughly enjoyable article and I think the fun of the play comes through in it - well done all. Awadewit (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I've copyedited this article and checked over the references, but haven't done much to the content. Rosuav (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great. No problems as far as I can see. --Folantin (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great article on my favorite G&S. — MusicMaker5376 14:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:27, 29 June 2008 [7].

The Penelopiad[edit]

Nominator(s): maclean


A novella by Margaret Atwood. It is a WP:1FA-promised article that I have been working on for a couple of months. This article now meets all the FA criteria so I'm nominating it here. maclean 06:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • At first I thought it was a typo (revealing something about myself here!), but then realised that a novella is different to a novel. Perhaps wikilinking its first use will make things clearer for people like, erm, me?
  • I'm not a fan of using "#1" (as opposed to "number one"), so unless that's common practice on novell(a) articles...
  • Canongate Myth Series needs to be in italics throughout. (Including in refs.)
  • "who rigged the contest between suitors that decided which one would marry her" - this sentence sounds a bit bulky to me... I think you could chop after "suitors" (as it's probably assumed they're marriage suitors), but if not could you reword another way?
  • "Structured similar to a classical Greek drama the storytelling alternates between Penelope's narrative and the choral commentary of the twelve maids" - eek, needs commas for clarity.

But overall, quite a good read. giggy (:O) 13:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've made the appropriate fixes [8] maclean 15:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looking good. Support. giggy (:O) 01:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Sources look good, links checked out fine with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. maclean 15:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I think changing "..." to "[...]" more clearly indicates that words have been removed.
  • Some American spelling exists in the article when it should only contain British spelling since it's a book published by a Canadian author. Examples of American spelling include: "honorable", "recognize", "criticize", etc.

Gary King (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made the fixes [9] There is one "recognize" still in there, but it is part of a quote (I did double-checked the source to make sure the quote is correct). Thanks for reading. --maclean 18:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Support. An enjoyable article on a book I enjoyed but have mostly forgotten. Will support when the comments below are addressed.

  • Prose issues, all in the plot.
  • "neither Odysseus’ mother Anticleia, nor his nurse Eurycleia, liked Penelope but Eurycleia helped Penelope settle into her new role and became friendly, but often patronizing." - seems like something is missing here, perhaps "liked Penelope but eventually Eurycleia" might read a little better.
  • "Odysseus instructed Telemachus to execute the maids who were in league with them." - But they weren't in league with the suitors according to the previous sentence. Change to "who he believed were in league".
  • "but Penelope remained silent on the maids actions as spies so not to raise suspicions on the event" - raise suspicions of what? This isn't clear.
  • "Using the maid's lecture on anthropology, Atwood satirizes some of the feminist criticisms of Robert Graves." - This kind of comes from nowhere. I doubt the majority of readers are familiar with the feminist criticisms of Robert Graves, and so I suggest there be a brief discussion of what they are. Also, is this Robert Graves or someone else with the same name? I see this is discussed below, but I recommend either explaining (and linking) it when it first appears or moving the whole lot to the lower section.
  • There is a reference that does not come after punctuation in the "narrative voice justice" section.
Still there, after the word Odyssey.
  • Numbers less than ten should normally be written out, not given in numerals.

Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed the book, also. As someone who has read the book, your perspective in very valuable. Thanks for reviewing. I believe I got everything here [10] maclean 21:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've struck out above as done, although I think you missed one. I did notice something else, "Atwood agreed to participate, believing she was helping a rising young publisher." - I don't think this issue recurs further down, but this sentence gives me images of an enraged Atwood claiming she was cheated by someone pretending to be from a small publishing house. I don't think this is quite what is meant, but I'd consider rephrasing.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support: I'm a fan of Atwood's, so I'm very glad that an article dedicated to one of her books may very soon become featured! I quite enjoyed the book and I think the article is well executed; I actually added the infobox a year ago when it was nothing more than a stub, so imagine my surprise to see it now! A few comments before I support:
  • In The Penelopiad Atwood has Penelope reminisce on the events during the Odyssey: I'm not a fan of describing plot in terms of authorship; although this is a reworking, I think you could simply write "In The Penelopiad, Penelope reminisces..."
  • "jump-rope rhyme, a lament, an idyll, a ballad" are all wikilinked later on in the article, but should also be linked in the lead
  • I fixed a few missing commas here and there, but there may be more.
  • As a fifteen year old she was married to Odysseus: a little awkward; "at fifteen, she was married"?
  • I feel there should be an explanation for the title, Penelopiad, even if it's just a sentence. Is there anything in the sources that addresses this? I always took it as a cross between Penelope and Iliad, but I could be wrong; it wouldn't be the first time. :)
  • The tense switches from past to present in the "Reception" section; make sure it stays past, changing "calls" to "called", etc. Also, repeating "Atwood at her finest" is somewhat redundant; perhaps it can be changed to something similar to "Robert Wiersema echoed that sentiment, adding that the book shows..."

Great work, maclean, I enjoyed the read! María (habla conmigo) 15:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what the edit counter says (which triple's giggy's and double Epbr123's edit count for some reason), you are the second biggest contributor to the page (by edit count). Thank you for coming back and reviewing. I integrated your suggestions.[11] I have not encountered any sources that address the meaning behind the title. I took it to be a simple portmanteau, also. maclean 19:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quantity more than quality on my part, I'm sure. :) Nice job, maclean, I'm more than willing to offer my support. María (habla conmigo) 12:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:27, 29 June 2008 [12].

Hare coursing[edit]

Self-nomination: I've been working on this for a while, was delighted that the Good Article review process was able to prompt improvements in the article. I now have more time on my hands, and hope to work with comments made to ensure that the article can be assessed at/helped to reach FA standard. MikeHobday (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the references are broken ({{cite web|url=http://www.lurecoursing.org.uk/lurecoursing/index.html|title=Lure Coursing Explained|publisher=British Sighthound Field Association|date=2008|accessdate=2008-04-12)))
  • Format the dates in the references, so "2008-02-10" becomes "2008-02-10" and "2000-2" (which hardly anyone reads like that) becomes "February 2000".
  • Use en dashes for page ranges in the references per WP:DASH
  • Some references are placed incorrectly, such as "coursing [25] where", which has an extra space before it; remove extra space. Also, "coursing' [25]," – the reference goes after punctuation. This is all per WP:FOOTNOTE. Ensure the other references are placed properly because several are not.

Gary King (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, tried to do these, though I'm not really expert on the dashes. MikeHobday (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Epbr123 has very kindly done the dashes, hope that's OK now. MikeHobday (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"2000-2" →" "February 2000" in the references, too. Gary King (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted, now done. MikeHobday (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do let me know if I've missed anything else. I find a fresh eye is often best placed to spot such things. MikeHobday (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Starts out awkward: "Hare coursing is the coursing of hares" - I Palindrome I?
  • Perhaps a little more context in the opening, to explain exactly what it is without turning to the links
  • Lead also needs another paragraph, to fulfill the requirements. Maybe something about its history, and then transition to the sport today?

Interesting read, I'll continue to add more comments as I see them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to cover this, could you look to see how the new version looks? Thanks. MikeHobday (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better. I tried to clean up the second paragraph a little, make sure it is still accurate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thanks. MikeHobday (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 20:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your website references, a large number of them are missing publishers. They give authors, but no publishers.
I think I've now put publishers for everything. MikeHobday (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One dead link is showing up on the link checker tool. Another says it's timing out.
All bar one addressed, not sure if that is a temporary or permanent issue. MikeHobday (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the status on these? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link was dead yesterday and today, so I planned to check Monday just in case it has gone down for the weekend. I've asked [13] the User who found the link for suggestions, but I anticipate having to remove the reference on Monday. MikeHobday (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to User:Cattus, who has found a new location for the law, I have removed the dead link. MikeHobday (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. MikeHobday (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Arrian ref, is lacking either a page number or a book/paragraph reference.
Removed as duplicate, and mentionned in references, as classic book. MikeHobday (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reinserted with page number. MikeHobday (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed - duplicate source in any event. MikeHobday (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're linking to a lot of books that are previews on Google Books. Unfortunately, they often don't link to the page you want, due to the vagaries of the preview system. (At least twice this happened checking out refs on this article) Page numbers would be nice. Also, I worry about using google books as a reference like that, because you're not usually getting the full book, so it's hard to be sure you're getting the full nuances of the author's writing.
I see that the use of "cite web" and the google book links causes the page number in the reference to be lost. I seem to have a choice between having the link and showing the page number in the article. Can yoiu advise me on the better practice? MikeHobday (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you just giving a convience link for the reader? I.e. are you using a hard copy book? If you are, you can use the {{cite book}} template and use the url field to give the link to the book page as well as use the page numbers. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably, I was using google books as the source when trying to do a wide search for relevant information. I did, of course, read the relevant chapters thoroughly to be sure that I was not providing a misleading account. Accordingly, I've used the {{cite book}} template. MikeHobday (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works. Although I gotta admit I hate the "use Google books" option, at least you read the whole chapter. Too many people just do a search on a phrase and don't read beyond the highlights. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because Battersea Dogs and Cats Home is a highly reputable and independent organisation. MikeHobday (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't a dog breeding organization be a better source though?
I'm sure you're right, but breeding organisations, like The Kennel Club for example, do not recognise cross-breeds. MikeHobday (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 18 Mirriam O'Reilly - is this a TV show? Does it have a title? Also, should be author last name first to fit with the rest of the footnotes.
Surprisingly, no. It's just called Countryfile every week. Changed name format. MikeHobday (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was used twice, one now replaced. MikeHobday (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't answer why it's reliable for the one time it's being used? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, wasn't claiming it was but (perhaps unnecesarilly) reporting work in progress. MikeHobday (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More reliable source found for key information, the extra detail in the Gulf Coast Greyhounds source, is now described as a claim, but could be removed if you think that exagerates its reliability. MikeHobday (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I've been pretty busy this week with a horse show (which is finishing up thankfully) so I've been double checking everything. Looks fine.
Amended to refer to as a claim rather than a fact. Regrettably, hare coursing is not subject to that many scientific articles, and I hope that you feel that relevant claims can be cited as such. MikeHobday (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Have you done any looking on JSTOR for articles that might have been published? While there may not be scientific, there might be historical ones. Also look at http://www.nsl.org/, they may have some information online. (It's a GREAT library, although a bit out of the way) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've used several (I have Athens access to many databases of journals, including Science Direct, Jstor and Ingenta. I hadn't been aware of nsl, and its online catalog seems down for now, but I'll try again later. MikeHobday (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know in some of my research I've run across articles about hunting in the middle ages, as well as some tangential bits about other hunting styles from work on Thoroughbreds. These might be helpful Book, Journal article in pdf with bibliographical entry, JSTOR article, another book, JSTOR article, pdf article, JSTOR article, Another JSTOR article, article about Salukis. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good sources, I've added some info. MikeHobday (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.animalplace.org/blood.html this site (current ref 28) it seems disjointed, I'm not sure exactly what they are against, it's not made plain on the site. Also, what makes them reliable?
Was used twice, first as referencing its own opinion which seems valid. Second use replaced. MikeHobday (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Always reliable for their own opinion. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both Scooby references replaced. MikeHobday (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with reputable international organisation. MikeHobday (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does HMSO stand for?
Her Majesty's Stationery Office, have wikilinked. MikeHobday (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Some of us are colonials...Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. MikeHobday (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay. Links (except mentions above) checked out okay. I wasn't able to evaluate the foreign language sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, started on these, will continue over the weekend. MikeHobday (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image concerns resolved, Kelly hi! 12:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kelly hi! 19:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image:NI coursing leaflet.jpg is non-free and has some problems. It seems to be used in a decorative way in the article. The text of the article doesn't discuss this poster at all. The image description say the purpose of this is to demonstrate coursing by muzzled greyhounds - since this type of coursing still takes place today, the image is replaceable in this role per WP:NFCC#1. There is a brief explanation that it would be difficult to replace this image - I'm afraid this isn't normally accepted at Wikipedia as a reason except in exceptional circumstances. After all, the League Against Cruel Sports was able to obtain a photo; we should be able to as well. (Perhaps we can get a photo from them?)
  • Image:Hare5.jpg claims a public domain release by the League Against Cruel Sports, but there's no evidence of the release (i.e. an OTRS ticket or a link to a copyleft statement).
The use is not intended to be decorative, but to do what the caption says. Regrettably, just because an activity takes place, does not mean that its organisers permit photography. In fact, they do not. I would dearly have loved a straight forward photo, but these are just not available. Hence I hope that the use of the leaflet image is considered exceptional here. With regard to Image:Hare5.jpg, the evidence is that, for seven years from 2001 to 2007, I was verifiably a senior manager at the League Against Cruel Sports([14] and hence able to authorise public domain release. MikeHobday (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the leaflet image, I'm sorry, but the objection stands. I guess the obvious question I would ask would be how the LACS obtained a photo if it was unobtainable. On the second image, are you the copyright holder? Kelly hi! 23:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for making this point in two places, but I thought I should reply here as well as on the image deletion page you proposed. With regard to Image:NI coursing leaflet.jpg, you are regrettably unduly optimistic in suggesting that a free image is available. As I said above, the organisers of hare coursing events do not generally permit photography. The background to this image is this: that the League Against Cruel Sports purchased a commercial image with permission to use it on a leaflet. and then distributed the leaflet. They did not buy general use rights for the image and therefore cannot release the image. The leaflet they produced, however, is in the public domain and is therefore, I believe, exceptionally able to be used here. With regard to Image:Hare5.jpg, could I apologise again for not being clearer above. I was, for seven years, a senior manager at the League Against Cruel Sports (evidence above) and therefore able to release permission on behalf of the organisation. I no longer work for them, and can no longer be considered as the copyright holder. See also the deletion page for that image. MikeHobday (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permission for Hare5 confirmed [15]. MikeHobday (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am conscious of the overlap of this FA candidacy and the IFD on this image. Given the backlog in processing IFDs, it is likely that User:SandyGeorgia will have to make a decision on the FA promotion before the IFD has been closed. I therefore have a suggestion to make: that the image is removed from the article now, to allow it to proceed to FA, and reinserted if and only if the image passes IFD. What do you think? Would that be acceptable? MikeHobday (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a great suggestion to me. Kelly hi! 17:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done accordingly. MikeHobday (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm sure the statement "commoners with lurchers" makes sense in the UK, or parts of it perhaps, but on this side of the pond it is utterly baffling. I kind of understand the concept of a commoner, but I don't understand why they wouldn't have Greyhounds and I have absolutely no idea what a "lurcher" might be. Please fix! Maury (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have wikilinked lurcher and removed "commoner". I agree that the latter sounds archaic, even in a historical reference. MikeHobday (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, the link helped and I expanded it slightly. Maury (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, that looks an improvement. MikeHobday (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I entirely agree with Kelly's image concerns.
    • Regarding the leaflet: NFCC#1 does not, for better or worse, recognize "ethics" (i.e. adhering to "no photography allowed"). For example, photography in barracks buildings (i.e. museum sections) at Auschwitz is not allowed, yet we have still acquired images. Indeed, if muzzled coursing is still practiced, an image could be obtained. Again, there is no consideration of ease or a prohibition of subterfuge. Although now moot, NFCC#3B also requires minimal extent of use. If the purpose is to illustrate muzzled coursing, why is the entirety of the poster being used? Doing so is problematic, as, for example, the non-free logo in the lower left corner could be cropped out without harming the image's ability to fulfill its intended function.
    • Regarding Hare5: Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion. If the entity from which LACS purchased the image has permitted LACS to release it into the public domain, we will need proof of that. Additionally, although you may have been an employee and/or director of LACS, that does not necessarily mean you have/had authority from LACS to release its images. We will need to verify that either a) the author has released the image to PD or b) the author has released rights to LACS and you have authority to speak for and license of behalf of LACS. An OTRS ticket would likely be needed. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the leaflet, I would be happy to crop the image if that would help. I considered this before, but was concerned that this might violate the conditions for display, on the fair use template on the image page. It's not the ethics that concern me, so much as the practicality of getting a camera past security and whipping it out at the right moment. That may be easier in a museum than at a sporting event where all the rest of the audience might watch out for cameras.
With regard to Hare5, can I confirm what you need? You're saying that you need an email from the original photographer (in this case, a League contractor), and that the League's posession and historic use of that image is neither here nor there? Or do you want an email from the photographer confirming that the League has the copyright and one from the League confirming release? Should these be separate emails, or should the photographer email the League to pass on his email to Wikipedia? Genuinely, I ask just to get this right.
MikeHobday (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permission for Hare5 confirmed [16]. MikeHobday (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NI coursing Leaflet removed as discussed under Kelly, above. MikeHobday (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have no respect for IfD, image concerns have been addressed for the time being. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The content is well referenced and the prose looks good, but I have concerns about the balance of the article. While bloodsports are controversial and substantial coverage of controversy is to be expected, the proportion of the article devoted to controversy and legal status is perhaps excessive when compared to the brief History section. We are told that hare coursing peaked in the 1800s, but are given no further detail. Conversely, phrases such as Hare coursing in the Republic of Ireland is opposed by the Irish Council Against Bloodsports could be trimmed; this particular example has a certain "turkeys oppose Christmas" feel to it. I think the article would definitely benefit from some application of summary style. Some more specific individual points: — Oldelpaso 18:43, 17 June 2008 — continues after insertion below
The Irish Council Against Bloodsports reference seemed repetituous and I have removed it. At a quick measurement, the controversy section occupies a quarter of the article. While the history section could be expanded (and I will review this), I suggest the balance is probably OK. Hare coursing is currently illegal in three of the eight legislative countries in which it has taken place in recent years, and such debates inevitably suggest to me that this is the issue that will interest and draw readers to the article. In contrast, the history, while certainly important, is more likely to be of interest to a smaller group of readers. MikeHobday (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some history, particularly addressing the 1800s as you suggest, so would welcome any suggestions you had as to other historical aspects that might be included. In the meantime, I'll continue to research. Thanks. MikeHobday (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • first complete set of English rules was drawn up in the reign of Elizabeth I by Thomas Duke of Norfolk - what were the main features of these rules?
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Informal coursing is nearly always poaching... ...Informal coursing sometimes does have the landowner's permission - "nearly always" and "sometimes" do not gel here. "sometimes" could go with "usually", or "nearly always" with "occasionally" though.
Agree, and amended. MikeHobday (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • By 2003, the UK coursing season ran from 1 October to 28 February. Implies that this is a change. Is the intention to show that hare coursing is a winter pursuit?
There was an explicit reference to change which was removed during the GA review as it was frankly marginal. The real implication is that there had been changes, but this was the position at the time when coursing was banned. MikeHobday (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have reviewed again. I agree with your criticism here, and have amended accordingly. MikeHobday (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Be careful when using the word "claim" and suchlike.
Good point, have reviewed. MikeHobday (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a direct quote, so "hindleg" seems appropriate. MikeHobday (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support In retrospect that little bit of editing in the intro was the only thing I found even remotely troublesome, minor thought it was. And even that's been addressed. Maury (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I do have one suggestion (and I'm not withdrawing support!). Would it be ok to move the Conservation/Pest control section down? It seems to me that the controversy and legislation sections should be placed closer together, as they seem very much related. Perhaps it should even be a subsection? Maury (talk) 02:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Actually, I'm agnostic on this point, but my very slight inclination is not to do so on the basis that the conservation issue, while debated over, is not the centre of controversy and User:Oldelpaso rightly cautions against over-emphasis on controversial aspects of the article. MikeHobday (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I did the GA review. The article has been substantially strengthened since then, and this process of improvement has seemingly continued during this FAC. I would simply draw Mike's attention to a couple of minor points:-

  • Greyhounds with a capital G in the first line, but lower case later in the lead. Suggest drop the capital, and in Greyhound racing.
  • The Francis Barlow image is left-aligned under a subsection heading, which contravenes wiki policy. It also displaces the next subheading.

Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Note policy on capitals is unclear, but happy to follow advice. MikeHobday (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, Giants2008 (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Interesting article, but needs more work

  • History, Formal coursing: Comma after The Master of Game, which will place punctuation after a footnote.
  • Second sentence, second paragraph of section has a ton of commas. Can this be broken up in some fashion?
  • Description of formal hare coursing: It's weird that there are references for some breeds but not others. Was this contentious at some point?
  • Comma after walked-up coursing.
  • "The UK coursing season ran from 1 October to 28 February" was mentioned earlier. My problem is that I think the year should be given, in the form of "The 2003 UK coursing season". It's currently unclear what year is being referred to.
  • Variations in Irish coursing: Extra space in "10,000 spectators".
  • Last sentence of third section paragraph: Either remove the comma or add another after "freedom of information legislation".
  • Variations in the United States: Current ref 27 not after punctuation. There are a few other occurances in the article, but I understand it in those cases; however this one should be fixed.
  • "including California, Montana and Wyoming." Change period to a comma.
  • "The leading United States coursing body, the National Open Field Coursing Association, lists 480 dogs of various breeds as being registered with it and 83 events taking place in the 2006-07 coursing season." "with it and 83 events" doesn't read well. Giants2008 (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done. MikeHobday (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other countries: "Coursing in Spain has a long history, using Spanish galgos, but have a precarious life after their coursing careers, with the World Society for the Protection of Animals suggesting that many tens of thousands die cruelly each year." I don't know what the last part is trying to say. although I think it refers to the animals. Badly in need of revamping.
  • Next paragraph is one sentence. Is there a reason this can't be merged with the preceding paragraph?
  • Controversy, Welfare arguments: "Until more recently" should have a time period give because this may not age well without one.
  • Add an abbreviation after Universities Federation for Animal Welfare to avoid any confusion.
  • Two Burns Inquiry links in section.
  • "The Burns Inquiry, set up by the Government" This should be "UK Government", matching the earlier usage. Again this would help avoid confusion.
  • Welfare arguments in Irish style coursing: Another Burns Inquiry link.
  • Two one-sentence paragraphs in a row. The first can be improved by turning the semi-colon into a period. The second is stubby and will require more thought.
  • The kill: Another one-sentence paragraph here. This one caught my interest. It makes me wonder how many people like seeing hares killed. Are there any polls on this? If so, this would be a good addition.
  • Conservation/Pest control: This title violates the Manual of Style. Slashes should not be in section titles, and only proper nouns are capitalized after the first word. I'm thinking Conservation and pest control would work.
  • "high densities of hare are considered as agricultural pests" I don't like the flow of this. It reads like the densities are the problem, not the hares. Hares in high numbers is the point this is trying to make, so write it that way. Giants2008 (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of good points. I have covered all these, but note: no polls on enjoying kills (hard to imagine how this could be done reliably); Conservation and pest control are, in a sense, opposites, so I have suggested "or" to highlight contrast. MikeHobday (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • California Dept. of Agriculture should be fully named and linked.
  • Debate and legislation, In the UK: Problem sentence: "and the then Prime Minister Harold Wilson joined in the criticism of coursing." Not sure if first the is necessary. Hyphen after then. Coursing is the word before this starts, so I would end this with "joined in the criticism."
  • "in 1969 and in 1975".
  • "but neither law passed the House of Lords to become law. Redundant use of law.
  • Comma after Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act.
  • In Northern Ireland: Second paragraph is one sentence. Merge or expand that baby.
  • "from both urban and rural residents of both Northern Ireland and the Republic." Not liking either use of both here, since they are not needed. The writing would be cleaner without them.
  • In California: The California Assembly bill sentence is quite long. I suggest breaking it up by their definition of coursing.
That's all from me. Giants2008 (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Included one both on NI and hyphenated California sentence, but others as sugested. MikeHobday (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think this meets FA standards now. The writing is quite a bit better than when I first came here. Giants2008 (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note, many minor glitches when I ran through, see edit summaries, consider asking User:Epbr123 to do a complete runthrough (I see he earlier got only some issues with AWB). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:54, 28 June 2008 [17].

Donald Bradman[edit]

previous FAC
Nominator: Dweller

This is an article that's been the subject of a tremendous amount of work in the last few months. There have been many contributors who've moved the article on from the excellent base provided, notably by User:Phanto282.

The article has undergone a (more than) extensive Peer Review, has been copy-edited by a number of terrific volunteers and some of the more contentious aspects of the article have been thoroughly debated by the cricket experts at WP:CRIC and by FAC regulars at the article talk page.

I strongly believe that this article would not be out of place among those that espouse our best qualities.

Being defensive for one minute - it is slightly longer than I think ideal, but the man was a phenomenon and utterly notable. For about 70 years he was the subject of the fascination of millions, if not billions of people, as a player, administrator, writer and thinker. The article's about as short as we could make it without rendering it not comprehensive. --Dweller (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citeweb issues raised by Nishkid64
Resolved comments from Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some inconsistencies in the references. For example, refs 193 and 194 use the YEAR-MONTH-DAY for date written, while refs 222 and 223 use DAY MONTH YEAR. Furthermore, in some cases you properly use the "work=" parameter of {{cite news}}, while in others (ref 139, 135, 130, just to name a few) you use "publisher=" instead, even though "work=" is acceptable. Also, some refs (Wisden, xxxx edition refs) don't have any publisher info (should be Cricinfo). For those refs, it would also be nice to indicate that registration is required to access that content. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for those comments. I'll look into the date inconsistencies, thanks. Re "work" v "publisher", if both are acceptable, does it matter which is used? How do I show registration is needed? --Dweller (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Work and publisher are two separate things. "Work=" italicizes, while "Publisher=" doesn't. Furthermore, work and publisher aren't the same most of the time. For example, a work would be the New York Times, while the publisher is Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. I do believe it's the same for BBC News and some other news sites. As for registration, just add "Registration required to access content." at the end of the ref. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As The Rambling Man will happily tell you, I'm lousy with the citeweb templates. Evidence is now available at the article, because my last edit to the D/M/Y issue gave a load of redlinks, lol. Thanks for clarifying. I'll crack on with this and let you know when I think it's done. --Dweller (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned right now, I've rushed through all 200+ ref's and made them, at least, consistent with one another. Happy to take advice and modify further, but would encourage reviewers to focus on content of the article rather than the peripheries (which, while important, aren't as important as the article by an order of magnitude...imho) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, reference consistency is a requirement for all featured articles. Criterion 2c of the FA criteria specifically states that references must be formatted consistently. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not arguing with that but I think Dweller would be keen to receive some feedback on the huge amount of prose in the article rather than the citations which can be tidied up at the end. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I suck at prose. :) Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dates and citation formatting look consistent now (and yes, it's an important issue for FAs :-). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to an earlier comment you made, the registration issue has been dealt with here. --Dweller (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB isn't a reliable source, right? It's used as ref 195. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found a replacement source from an Australian source called The Daily Telegraph. --Dweller (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Various comments from User:Gary King
Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned above, inconsistencies in references, so I won't delve into this any further until it has been addressed. Please format like WP:CITE/ES.
The Rambling Man has kindly agreed to take that on. --Dweller (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "innings. See [1]." – Definitely should have text for that URL.
Not sure what you mean... hopefully it'll be clear if I search the text. --Dweller (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Gotcha. I'll see how I can improve it. --Dweller (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TRM got there. Thanks - that was a good spot. --Dweller (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images should be placed before level three section headings, per MOS:IMAGE.
I'll look into that. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found and dealt with one breach. There's another (a graph) but there's no text following it, so no rationale for doing anything with it. --Dweller (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some mixes of American and British spelling; I am assuming the article wants to use the latter. One example if American spelling is "honor".
I can only see "honorary", which is correct usage in British English. One of our many quirks;-) Could be the one you saw has been fixed? Anyway, if you spot any others, let me know please. --Dweller (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy issues from User:Giants2008
Issues resolved Giants2008 (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Probably the most important sports article I've reviewed to date. With an athlete of this stature, everything must be as close to perfect as possible. Here are my comments.

Good stuff. Thanks - I want this article polished to perfection. --Dweller (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the "greatest statistical performance in sports history" statement cited by a later part of this article? We are not a reliable source, remember. Either use references from later in the article or don't put a reference there. I'm not a big fan of copying citations in the lead, but would understand that a claim like this may need one there.
I see where you're coming from, but it's not a reference, it's a note. I did it because I thought casual readers would be astonished by the claim and want to read more, rather than to evidence it. In common with most FAs I've worked on, I've not evidenced most of the claims in the Lead; exceptions being where something is not referenced elsewhere. --Dweller (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're doing now. It does need something, since it is an extraordinary claim. Giants2008 (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some of which stand even today" is quite time-sensitive. Try "some of which still stand".
Happy to make the change, though I'm not sure what the problem was, nor how it's addressed by the change. Nonethless... done. --Dweller (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just had an issue with today. Just trying to make sure this doesn't become outdated. Giants2008 (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A controversial set of tactics, known as Bodyline, was specifically devised" Since tactics is plural, should this be "were"? I looked at the Bodyline article and couldn't find a similar use.
  • My understanding reading this was that "set of tactics" is a singular item. There was one "set of tactics" and it was called Bodyline. Perhaps the sentence needs recasting to avoid confusion. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mattinbgn. That's correct. Bodyline was a single entity, comprising of various tactics being put together (chiefly selection of players and application of leg theory, fast bowling and innovative field placements) I see no need to reword (there's no confusing ambiguity), but if others disagree, I'll reconsider. --Dweller (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I misread this one. "Set" is the key word, not "tactics". Set should be singular, so this is correct. Sorry about that! Giants2008 (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to curb his batting brillance" Be careful with phrases like this. Reviewers will think this is POV even if it's true.
Ooh, good spot. I'll obliterate it. --Dweller (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Youth and early career: One sentence paragraph here. An occasional short paragraph isn't bad, but too many is a negative. It doesn't really go well with the previous paragrapah, though.
Fixed. --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bush cricketer: Two Ashes and Test cricket links in section.
Good spot. Gone. --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First-class debut: Another Ashes link.
Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Test career: It's weird that not out is linked right after a prior use. I'd move the link to first mention.
Strange - I only just added the not out link and I thought I'd been careful to use it first-up. I'll check this. --Dweller (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Did you mean "run out"? The not "out"s seem to be fine, but I found a problem as you describe with "run out" and fixed it, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Run out was what I meant. My ignorance of cricket terms comes through again. :-) Giants2008 (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Later I'll try to clean up a few things myself, but this should be enough for now. When these are addressed, I will return for more. Giants2008 (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time for the second round from me. I changed some things yesterday to lighten the load here, leaving some things I was unsure about.
  • 1930 tour of England: "Bradman spent a lot of his free time alone, writing," Is the first comma needed? I didn't know whether it should be removed, so I waited until I could ask about it.
Puzzled - looks fine to me. He was alone, writing. Maybe I'm puzzled cos I can only see one comma, so which is the "first" one you're referring to? --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the full sentence: "Bradman spent a lot of his free time alone, writing, as he had sold the rights to a book." The serial comma thing always confuses me. Giants2008 (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This paragraph is unusual. It hops from Bradman being aloof to a Test match. I'm uncertain whether the chronological order is maintained here.
Agreed. Moved it to end of section where tour as a whole is being judged and it contrasts nicely with his reception back in Australia. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no-one" Don't think a hyphen is needed.
Hmm. Could be a cultural thing. I'd always spell it that way. "No one" means something else altogether and "noone" offends my Englishman's eye. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably is a cultural thing. Giants2008 (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant hero: "he scored quickly in making a succession of high scores against the South Africans in the southern hemisphere summer of 1931–32." Scored and score are redundant.
I see what you mean, though they've been used differently, it looks ghastly. Amended. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bodyline: "Jack Fingleton was in no doubt that Bradman's game altered irrevocably as a consequence of Bodyline". Seems to me that this should either be "changed" or "was altered". If the latter, also change "was in" to "had".
Why? What's wrong with altered? It's a slightly interesting usage ("the game" is active, rather than passive) but replacing it with "changed" is the same usage. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just not used to seeing altered used in that way. If you think it's okay I'll accept it.
*Declining health and a brush with death: "Bradman blazed two centuries". What does blazed mean in this context? I'm worried that it's either POV or jargon. Never mind; I missed the explanation below. Giants2008 (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at this time, this" is a redundancy. Change first this to the?
Good spot. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Internal politics and the Test captaincy: "needed to replace the retired Bill Woodfull as captain." How about "needed to replace retired captain Bill Woodfull."
No, because that would imply he'd just retired from the captaincy. He'd retired full stop. --Dweller (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and it seemed that the captaincy was affecting his form." Would perhaps be better as "the captaincy issue" or such.
Seems fine to me. --Dweller (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It just looks odd to me seeing as Bradman wasn't the captain. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, I guess. Giants2008 (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • POV alert: "In an epic performance".
Ooh yes! I'll deal. --Dweller (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he battled a influenza" Is "a influenza" commonly used in British English?
Yuck! Where did that come from? It's toast. --Dweller (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to do one more round of comments later, but this is all for now. Giants2008 (talk) 01:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Time for the final round from me. Dweller's apparently off for the weekend, but I'm sure someone else will see these and respond.
  • End of an era: "he described the captaincy as "exhausting" and that he "found it difficult to keep going"" Would this be better with said before that he?
  • 'Being bold, I will address some of these for the nominator, I hope he doesn't mind. Agreed, and changed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With Bradman injured and Fingleton too unable to bat due to a leg muscle strain".
  • "The ghost of a once great cricketer": Second straight section with a fibrositis link.
  • Century of centuries and "The Invincibles": "The story perpetuated over many years that Bradman missed the ball because of tears in his eyes was a claim he denied for the rest of his life." How about "A story perpetuated over many years that Bradman missed the ball because of tears in his eyes, which Bradman denied for the rest of his life." I'm sure you can improve my version.
  • Reworded to "A story developed over the years that claimed Bradman missed the ball because of tears in his eyes; a claim Bradman denied for the rest of his life." -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that this is a piped link I would assume so. Both approaches are in line with WP:CRIC#STYLE: "Where a person is best known by their initials and surname (as in W. G. Grace), use either W. G. Grace or WG Grace for the title of the article, depending on the article creator's personal preference. [...] If using a form such as W G Grace in the body of an article, ensure that it is redirected to one of the acceptable title forms – e.g., WG Grace." -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After cricket, Administrative career: "Cricket suffered an increase in defensive play during the 1950s." Is this POV? It may be safer to state that "Cricket saw an increase..."
  • Later years and legacy: ABC is linked in its second use in the section.
  • "Bradman's life and achievements were recognised by the Australian nation with two notable issues." Recognised by Australia?
  • ''I have reworded to "in Australia". Given that Australia Post is corporatised, the wording "by Australia" seems a little too much like "the Australian government". Once again Dweller may feel differently. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Family life: "it was more a matter of "the pair inhabit different worlds."" Can the first part of this be changed to better flow with the quote?
  • I have gone the other way and made a (very small) change to the quote. It does not change the meaning and without access to the source, I was loathe to change the lead in to the quote. Trust this is OK. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statistical summary, Cricket context: Brian Lara is linked twice in the section. I would have removed this myself, but didn't know if this was intentional. considering that all names in the section are linked.
  • World sport context: I would link the statistics in the table. Most cricket fans will have no idea what a batting average in baseball is, and the other stats may be unknown to certain people as well.
  • linked the two batting averages, the others seem self explanatory to me at least. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while a basketball player would need to score an average of 43 points per game." Should the number be 43.0?
  • I think you may have a better idea on the correct format for basketball statistics than WP:CRIC. Changed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's all from me. Please respond to these ASAP so I can fully support this. Giants2008 (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed these points on behalf of the nominator, if that is satisfactory. -- 04:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
100% Support - One of the finest sports articles on Wikipedia in my humble view. One final comment from me: August 27 is Bradman's 100th birthday. Sounds like a perfect Main Page date to me. Giants2008 (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no consensus by User:Bole2

Resolved issues from Buc (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buc. Thanks for this... and for your copy-edit. --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sisters—Islet," why the hyphen, there is another in the next pragragh.
It's an em dash. See WP:DASH. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His unbeaten 103 (from 146 balls)" the reader might not know what you mean by "unbeaten"
Good point. I'll wikilink --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(at 56.57)" no idea what that means.
Again, good one. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Test selectors made five changes to the team who had played in the previous Test match. Significantly, Australia’s most successful bowler Clarrie Grimmett was replaced by Ward, one of four players making their debut. The controversy over Grimmett’s omission from the team was to become a theme that dogged Bradman for the next two years—he was regarded as having finished the veteran’s Test career." the first two sentences have nothing to do with Bradman and I don't really understand the third, a theme that dogged Bradman!? and who is "the veteran"?
Bradman was a selector. Grimmett is the subject of the sentence, so is the subject of "the veteran" --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, this wasn't fantastically clear, esp as the info about Bradman being a selector now is a few parags up. I've clarified both issues. --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the Notes section be titled References?
I think it should be both. I'll make the change. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By stumps, he was" again the reader might not know what stumps means.
  • "won the game" test
    • Actually, while game is perfectly acceptable here, as is Test, I prefer match and have changed it as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To this day" as of 2008
  • "The South Africans did not get off so lightly" needs better wording
Agreed. I'll amend. --Dweller (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with 856 (or 38.5%)" not sure I follow this. 856 isn't the same as 38.5%.
    • of the total added - read the sentence beforehand and it's in context - 856 runs or 38.5% of the total were boundaries. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In making some other fixes, I've also clarified this better. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, others thought it proved the theory that he did not handle the short ball very well." needs a ref.
Sounds like it does, indeed. Strange. I'll look into it. --Dweller (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Good spot. Amended. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, others thought it proved the theory that he did not handle the short ball very well." needs a ref.
Sounds like it does, indeed. Strange. I'll look into it. --Dweller (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Good spot. Amended. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Australia crashed to successive defeats" why crashed?
  • "yet to be equalled in Test cricket" as of 2008
  • "After his death" whose? Bradman or his son?
Good spot. Clarified. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sporting idol at the height of the Great Depression." wasn't the Great Depression in America?
  • "... the old Bradman [was] back with us, in the twinkling of an eye, almost". who said this?
    • It's a quote from a book, see the reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why not say that in the text?
        • It doesn't need to say "this is a quote from the book" does it? It's obvious from the fact it's referenced immediately afterwards - that's what the ref number is for. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but again failed with the bat" why? what did he do?
    • failed to score many runs? Really, in order to keep the prose from being a series of very plain and boring explanations of every nuance of cricket, some of these phrases are essential. The prose should be "brilliant" if possible for FA. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Say that. Failed seems a bit POV.
        • Not really POV, if he didn't score runs then he failed with the bat. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • But what is "many runs"?
            • How many he scored (13) is now added. And it's self-explanatory given the nature of the rest of the article that this is Bradman failing with the bat so it should be fine now. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He "used the crease" who said this?
Good spot. It's jargon, not a quote. I'll find a wikilink. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suprised Jerry Rice isn't in the World sport context table. Cy Young is another you could put in.

That'd be OR. I can only include what RS have done. Which is this bunch. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are yes I see now. Well you could at least add Joe Montana.
Still OR - it's not in that RS. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ref says "By Mr. Davis's calculations, Bradman led the order of career-long achievement with a 4.4 rating, followed by soccer's Pelé (3.7), baseball's Ty Cobb (3.6), golf's Jack Nicklaus (3.5), basketball's Michael Jordan (3.4) and football's Joe Montana (3.1)."
I'll have to check that. If you're right, I don't know why he's been omitted and I'll add him. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, interesting. Actually, I'm surprised you're not arguing for just one other name to be included, as above (in which case on this occasion, I'd strongly argue against!) Montana provides me with a problem, in that I have no access to Davis' book (and neither does any of my current collaborators) and the only RS that mentions Montana does not mention the basis of his inclusion (touchdowns? points? successful passes? Superbowl rings? something else?) In any event, including the top five names seems sufficient for our needs, indeed, this is the basis on which Buckley's article in the Observer (currently ref 221) works. I'd guess that for the NYT article, Montana was added for the extra context his name would provide for a US audience, especially as the names in positions 1 and 2 are not from what I might term 'mainstream' American sports. With our international audience, we don't have such concerns. So, all in all, even if I had access to the book and could properly insert Montana in the table... I probably wouldn't. --Dweller (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some refs have the date before the link (e.g #35) and some after (e.g #47).
    • You'll need to take that up with the authors of the {{cite web}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it not possible to just enter all the web refs the same way?
        • The template {{cite web}} formats the references according to its own set of rules. If you read the examples given at the template page itself you can see that if you have an author (e.g. for 35) the author's name comes first, then the date, then the title, then the publisher, then the accessdate. If you don't have an author's name then the title comes first, then the publisher, then the date, then the accessdate. Modifying that template is outside the scope of this FAC and would have a huge impact Wikipedia-wide so I propose the citations are left as the current format. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cricinfo links require registration, you need to say this.
  • Might be worth mentioning him being out for a duck in his last test match in the lead.
Hmmm... I'm tempted. It's hard to justify, given that the Lead is already so packed. We haven't specified his highest score (334) either, which was a world record. Let's see what others think. --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't believe it's necessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "37 not out" the reader might not know what not out means, I know it's linked but a brief definition would help.
We can't explain all jargon in the article. Convention is to ensure that the first instance is wikilinked, so that an article is neither impenetrable nor dumbed down. --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This one does need to be explained though as it's used a lot.
I disagree - it is not the place of a biographical article to explain the laws of cricket. The link is sufficient to explain. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need much and it can be in brackets so it doesn't effect the flow of the writing.
Sorry, but sentences with "explanatory notes" in parentheses will affect the flow. I don't believe it needs to be explained here, you are on your own with this opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the Bush cricketer section so called?
    • The Bush is a commonly used phrase and being from the Bush or a "Bush cricketer" means coming from rural or undeveloped land. As Bradman did. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Say that.
        • The bush aspect is described in the lead, and linked also, so no more description is required. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It doesn't say anything about coming from rural or undeveloped land.
  • "Bradman and Jackson needed to prosper" POV
No. It's not saying that they prospered. The article is making the argument that with the Australians expected to struggle, to reverse that expectation, they needed the kids to do well. That's not POV. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Needs explaining.
I think it's fine as it is actually. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "four centuries, including two double hundreds" use either century or hundred, not both.
We get criticised for repetition of words in sentences/paragraphs. As they're synonyms, I see no gain from making this change. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but don't use both in the same sentence.
No, that doesn't make logical sense - no reason why not to brighten the prose up - it's clear these two are synonymous and avoiding repetition is a good thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't consistency important?
This isn't an argument of consistency - both words are interchangeable and can, and should, be used that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on wording at end of section... international cricket closed down in 1939 because most of the cricket-playing countries went to war. By the time Bradman returned to the world stage, he would be greatly reduced by poor health. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that really the main sebject of the section?
Do you have any other suggestions? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no other, obvious, pithy title and it seems a good one to end the pre-War period with. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about the In popular culture section. Seems like trivia.
You should have seen the way it used to look! Seriously, I think that all of the inclusions there are very significant (I ditched a lot of junk) and hang together reasonably well. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe ask a few other users what they think.
I've posted to WT:CRIC --Dweller (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus at WT:CRIC is that this is justified. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Australian cricketer, widely acknowledged as the greatest batsman of all time. Bradman's career Test batting average of 99.94 has been claimed to be statistically the greatest performance in any major sport." Is there some way of mereing these to statments since they they are saying much the same sot of thing. Also is "performance" the best word to use? Isn't a performance what you do in one game?
They're very much not the same thing! One is saying he was the greatest batsman ever (not bowler or fielder) in cricket. The second claim is that a stastistic he racked up is the greatest stat in any major sport. Again, not that he was the greatest sportsman. The two are very specific and very different. Re "performance" I see where you're coming from. I think rewording to "achievement" will do nicely. --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They both justify that he is seen as a great player. Buc (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The claims are very different. The opening sentences of the Lead have been discussed at great length at various pages and consensus seems to be to leave these claims as being notable and different claims. --Dweller (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think you could put his Test records in a table? Buc (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • His test record is already in a table in the Statistical summary "Performance in Test matches" section. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I know what you mean - you mean Donald_Bradman#Test_records, don't you? Pondering this. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still discussing / pondering this, but I wondered which of the WP:WIAFA criteria this would come under - or is this just a helpful suggestion, rather than a 'please change'? --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're comfortable leaving it as a list. --Dweller (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive for such a long article though looks to be relatively close. Buc (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks for such a detailed look-through. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Next best is Brian Lara with 9 in 232 innings (4%), Walter Hammond with 7 in 140 innings (5%) and Kumar Sangakkara 6 in 110 innings (5%)." again don't need to list them all.
How many would you include? --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One
Pondering this. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're still discussing this; we're currently split. I'll give it a bit longer. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As above. Status quo. --Dweller (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only seven players have surpassed his total, all at a much lower rate Sachin Tendulkar (who required 159 innings to do so), Matthew Hayden (167 innings), Ricky Ponting (170 innings), Sunil Gavaskar (174 innings), Jacques Kallis (200 innings), Brian Lara (205 innings) and Steve Waugh (247 innings)" you don't really needed to list them all. Maybe just say who was the quickest.
Pondering this. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're still discussing this; we're currently split. I'll give it a bit longer. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion is exactly divided. There are good arguments for keeping them, so I'll stick with the status quo. --Dweller (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't agree with the following suggestion

  • "he made a dramatic comeback" why dramatic?
    • By the fact he went on to captain an unbeaten tour of England with the Invicibles, as it states just after this clause. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doesn't say unbeaten.
        • Doesn't need to. The prose and linking makes it clear. This is part of making the article readable, interesting and potentially brilliant. We don't have to spell every single detail out. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Where is it made clear?
            • When you read the paragraph it is clear. Again, you're the only reviewer who's finding this a challenge. The community seems fine with it - you're on your own with this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've clarified the text as it wasn't obvious. --Dweller (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "complex, highly driven man" not sure what this means.
He had a complex personality and was highly driven. --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Say that.
It does say that - the prose is supposed to be elegant and, perhaps, brilliant. It is perfectly acceptable to say someone is complex. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about "highly driven"?
Don't know what more you can say. If a person is "highly driven" then they are "highly driven" - there's nothing more you can say. It's self-explanatory. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how "highly driven" is self-explanatory. He's not a car.
Well it makes perfect sense to me - it's a common usage. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article should not be writen just for you.
Buc, I don't believe we should make the prose childlike - it needs to be engaging. To be "highly driven" is in common parlance. Nearly 100k Ghits for the phrase. You're the only one who has a problem with it so I suggest the community consensus is that it stays as it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case we should ask others what they think. Buc (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's fine. Never mind brilliant prose, this isn't the Simple English wikipedia - we expect readers to be able to read and comprehend professionally written articles. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Significantly, he had not hit a six" why Significantly
Text goes on to explain. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that at all.
It says "if he hit the ball along the ground, then it could not be caught." - just before this we're talking about how many boundaries he struck, therefore it's significant that he didn't hit sixes because he wouldn' run the risk of being caught. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've helped the comprehension of this with a wikilink to six (cricket). Readers may have been unaware that a six is necessarily hit in the air (and therefore 'catchable') --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems a bit odd to say it's significant before explaining why and how
Cmon, Buc... it's the same sentence. --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just switch it round. Buc (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it makes perfect sense as it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we need to ask what others think. Buc (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I expect anyone not understanding the first half of a clause to read its second half before throwing up their hands in dismay. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the Reluctant hero section so called?
Section explains - he hated the adulation. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that?
It says "Bradman received a level of adulation that "embarrassed" him." hence a reluctant hero. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It says that in the section before.
So it's explained. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In another section. Why not call the last section Reluctant hero?
No, it's fine as it is. Once more, this seems to be a problem only for you Buc, the community consensus therefore suggests it should stay. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Need to ask others. Buc (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article's been reviewed endlessly. It's fine. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The public clamoured for the return" why clamoured?
I wasn't around then, but I'd imagine because he was the most successful batsman ever, by a country mile. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Say that.
That would be WP:OR Buc. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not OR right now?
Making statements of opinion which aren't cited is WP:OR. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is "clamoured" from a ref then?
No, it's not in quotemarks. It's an excellent and not at all OTT way of summarising the kind of fever that the RS describes as "'Bradmania', amounting almost to religious fervour, demanded his return". --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've nerver heard it before.
Buc, again, clamour is in common parlance - here's a definition for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Put a link in the article. Buc (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've already been criticised for linking terms in common parlance. --Dweller (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bradman blazed two centuries" why blazed
    • Presumably to emphasise the manner in which he gained his hundreds. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What was the manner?
        • Blazing is a common English term to express the fact he got to his hundreds in a rapid and flamboyant manner. It's a descriptive term which enhances the prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can't say I've ever heard it. Is there really not a more common affective than that?
            • Buc, I'm surprised. It's a very common phrase in batting sports e.g. cricket and baseball, to indicate flamboyant and rapid scoremaking. No-one else has picked this out as a problem so it should stay. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Use any one of those. Buc (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • TRM hasn't used any verbs you could replace "blazed" with. I don't think any intelligent reader would have any difficulty understanding what it means, even if they've not heard the term used before. --Dweller (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An innings and 579 run victory is a thrashing. Note, according to Princeton university, thrash means " beat thoroughly and conclusively in a competition or fight" The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Ah yes "beat thoroughly and conclusively" sounds better to me.
        • Ah no, why four words when one succinctly and accurately covers the issue? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • thrashed isn't very encyclopedic.
            • I'm afraid it is. As I stated, Princeton university finds it acceptable, not sure why we can't. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Whoes Princeton? Buc (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Princeton University. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I fail to see what that has to do with anything. Are they the boss other wikipeada or something?
                    • There's no need to be facetious. As above, we expect readers to have a reasonable grasp of English. It's hardly an obscure term. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the End of an era section so called?
    • replies to this seem to have been removed --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the paradox of the continuing fascination with Bradman" why is it a paradox?
It's a paradox, as explained by the pithy and rather brilliant quote, because the more reclusive he became, the more people wanted to know what he thought about everything from modern cricketers to brands of breakfast cereal. More, his contemporaries (especially the teammates who disliked him) couldn't believe how his adulation continued to grow, despite or perhaps because of this reclusiveness. Frith's a brilliant writer. If only he could be persuaded to contribute an FA! --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth explaining.
I think it's fairly clear already. --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I couldn't follow it at all. Buc (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I think the section explains it pretty well. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was released and gave researchers new insights" who are these's researchers? and what were these new insights?
Well, for starters, a load of the guys referred to in the Bibliography, but really this is beyond the scope of this article. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean name them all just what there intentions at reserching Bradman is, are they media?
Who they are is irrelevant. They'll be people interested in researching cricket or Bradman or both. It's a general term, used generally, to describe a group, that the article need not define more closely, because it's such a minute detail. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there some sort other mystery about his life they want to slove?
Buc, this is too much - there doesn't need to be some huge detail over such a small point of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said "huge detail" who are these "researchers"?
It's irrelevant. --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok with the remaining issues we will have to agree to degree. If you can show me that the consensus is not to do what I am suggesting I'll will accept it. Buc (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Buc, it's virtually impossible to prove a negative, which is what you're asking for. If the consensus agrees with you or disagrees with the status quo then they will state it here at the FAC. As far as we can we can, we've accommodated your requests but, ultimately, that's what they are, your personal requests. If you can identify where this article now fails to meet WP:WIAFA then let us know. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just ask what others think of my requests, if they don't agree with me that's fine, that would prove what you are claiming. The article shouldn't be wrtitten just for me of just for you, it should be written to please the majority. Buc (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Show me. Buc (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Buc, we are asking others - that's what this FAC is all about. No-one is agreeing with you. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 12:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno how that happened. Replaced. --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 129 has the publisher in the link title. (Cricionfo.com Benaud rates Ponting's team..)
Damned bots? Is there a bot that does that? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there was a bot that ran around fixing plain references to cite web's whose title was auto-generated from the webpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)r[reply]
Otherwise sources look good, the links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done, I think, Ealdgyth. --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments..looks pretty good...I have to nitpick a bit to find things to complain about....but here goes. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bradman was unprepared for the intensity of his reception... -why not just 'surprised by' (or was that the original verb?)
Dunno. Happy to amend. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In 15 Test matches since the beginning of 1930,.. 'since' makes me think of the present, why not simply 'from'?
This has resulted from recent edits from other users. I'll amend - it's lost the reason for the stat being presented, as well as becoming stilted. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bradman had several other problems to deal with at this time. - could drop the 'several' I think, nothing is lost by its removal.
Agreed. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Harte's analysis of the situation.. - hang on, who is Chris Harte? A word on who he is should be placed in front of him (biographer?)
Chris Harte, now retired, was a cricket journalist and commentator in Australia. He wrote at least four cricket books besides History of Australian Cricket and he is widely known among the cricket writing fraternity; he is also widely quoted. I'm surprised there is not an article about him on WP yet but, then, I still say that our cricket coverage even now has more redlinks than blue. BlackJack | talk page 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, just slotting in a 'Cricket author' before the first mention of his name will do very nicely. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I did it myself. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bradman suffered "a discernable and not unexpected wilting of spirit". - not fond of overuse of quotes especially when they aren't particularly notable. can we just say he grieved or got depressed?
I think this one's important. I don't really want to be accused of making up that he was depressed or grieving or whatever, so reproducing faithfully the exact words of the RS makes accusations of POV or OR or bad faith unanswerable. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh heck, none of these are real deal-breakers, so...Support conditional on fixing or telling me why I shouldn't bother with the above quibbles. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Davis' book is listed among the references. Do we have it ? If we do, we should use it instead of references 220 and 221. Tintin 14:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't, and the other key editors I've asked haven't either. Otherwise, I agree with you. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a superb article and I think the expectancy of some of the comments above is that it must be inch perfect because of Bradman's stature in world sport. I think we need to remember that a featured article does not have to be A-class (i.e., complete). I have read one biography of Bradman (i.e., Brightly Fades the Don) and am completely familiar with many details of his career. The article does not omit anything worthy of note, in my opinion, and I cannot see anything at all that I find remotely suspect. In terms of readability and provision of information, I give it 10/10. Excellent work by all concerned. BlackJack | talk page 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of article grades, FA class is a step above A class. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is "discernable" (Later years and legacy section, ref 166) Frith's mis-spelling of "discernible" or a typo? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. If it is a sic typo, it comes across a little pernickety to reproduce it, anyway. I'm sure Frith himself would approve if I fix it. :-) --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—It's a fine article indeed; congratulations to the main authors—you should be proud. I must declare that I made a small contribution to the development of the text a few weeks ago.
    • Suggestion: the boxed quote from the New Chronicle—isn't it stronger in reduced form? "As long as Australia has Bradman she will be invincible ... It is almost time to request a legal limit on the number of runs Bradman should be allowed to make." I don't quite see the relevance of the billiards sentence that I removed here: ("As long as Australia has Bradman she will be invincible ... In order to keep alive the competitive spirit, the authorities might take a hint from billiards. It is almost time to request a legal limit on the number of runs Bradman should be allowed to make."). Btw, I presume that the opening sentence is incomplete—chopped off before it finishes in the original; otherwise, four dots without initial space are necessary....
Agreed. The chop will remove a distraction. --Dweller (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's done. And the ellipsis is now unarguable! --Dweller (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Didn't like these sentences: "In his farewell season for NSW, Bradman averaged 132.44, his best yet.[25] He was appointed vice-captain for the 1934 tour of England. However, his health continued to be variable." Bit choppy, and "variable" sounds funny in this context. Go to the reference to help find a better epithet? TONY (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll take a look at that. --Dweller (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended, using a quote about his health and flowing the second and third sentences better. --Dweller (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tony1, and thanks again for the considerable feedback you gave at around the time of the Peer Review. --Dweller (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notes: there is a weasly statement in the lead, cited to Wiki. We can't cite to Wiki. The statement should be attributed (claimed by whom) and cited in this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy. I've avoided citing in the Lead, and this was intended to be a signpost for where to read more (cited) info, but I can see the problem. I'll try to address this later. --Dweller (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There. That should do the trick. --Dweller (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NB Thanks to both you and Blnguyen for pointing the way on how to deal with that. --Dweller (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Epbr123 has been kind enough to do an MOS swoop on the article. It should now be all ship-shape and Bristol fashion. Shiver me timbers. --Dweller (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While I haven't been part of the team involved in putting this article together, I have followed it through discussions on the acticle talk page, at WT:CRIC and at Peer Review and have chimed in from time to time with my opinion. Having said all that, I feel this article quite clearly meets the featured article criteria. It has undergone a very rigorous process to get to this stage and rightly so given the level of interest in the subject. It is well-written, thoroughly sourced, and covers all relevent matters in a even-handed manner. The only thing I would do differently is to shift the focus slightly from the statistics and place it a little more on Bradman the man. All the figures, tables and graphs included border on stats-porn and sometimes "less is more". Some themes relating to his personality are merely touched on and an expansion would be useful. Having said that, these points have been raised at earlier discussions; the consensus is the article balance is fine and I am comfortable with that. The various split articles also cover Bradman as a person in more detail. Overall, this article is certainly some of Wikipedia's best work. Well done to the authors. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "2,960 runs (at 98.66 with 10 centuries)": should this be "at an average of 98.66"?
  • "against the South Africans in the southern hemisphere summer" Would an earlier use of antipodean sound better? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Error in the "Bush Cricketer" section: Bradman scored 300 in the Berrima District final of 1925-26. He played with St George the following season, but returned to the Bowral team for the final and scored 320*, which resulted in a rule change barring Sydney Grade players from appearing in the local competition Phanto282 (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. My one quibble is with the Davis analysis as stated in the peer review, though that is but one small part of an excellent biography which is compelling and highly informative. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As long as the recommendations above (all minor problems) are acknowledged i see no problems with the article. It's a large article but it was enjoyable to read, clearly written and does justice to Bradman and Cricket in general. I have to say i was very impressed with the majority of the prose. I only wish i could write so well! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:54, 28 June 2008 [18].

Year Zero (album)[edit]

previous FAC
previous FAC (00:57, 28 April 2008)

Third time's the charm? Since failing back-to-back FACs, I brought the article to Peer Review and it has since been tweaked here and there since. As far as I can tell, I have addressed all concerns from both previous FACs and the Peer review. So, I welcome any further comments and suggestions. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Took it out: it was a duplicate citation anyways, so it wasn't really necessary.
Still in the article at current ref 33 Jason Gregory and current ref 35 Jason Gregory
Wow, can't believe I missed that. Rearranged/redid the citations again: no more gigwise. Drewcifer (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found and added an archived version.
  • It's from Robert Christgau, a much-discussed rock critic. It has not publisher because it's the same as the author (Robert Christgau).
  • Need to watch the all capitals in the references, they probably shouldn't be capitalized.
  • I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean in the titles?
Yes, I did but it looks like you got it. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help as always. Drewcifer (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • Reznor also speculated that he would release the next Nine Inch Nails album online in a similar fashion to The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust!, which he produced - this should explain what that fashion is
    • I realize it could veer into OR if there's no sources clarifying it, but I'd like more of an explanation of what makes this a concept album. The spots where the term "concept album" is used only refer to the lyrics criticizing the US government as a recurring theme (which, though it may be a theme technically speaking, is not itself the kind of thing the term "concept album" is commonly used for). But if I had to guess based on the rest of the article, I'd think the "theme" would be the dystopian futurism. So... I'm not sure what exactly my point is, but there you go...
  • Tuf-Kat (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • In the lead, "Year Zero... Year Zero" → "Year Zero... It"?
  • Rearranged a little bit, but some of the sentences didn't really benefit from swapped Year Zero with it, for one reason or another. Hopefully it's a little more readable now though.
  • For the first three paragraphs, "Year Zero... The album... The album" → "Year Zero... The album... Year Zero"? Lots of "The album... The album" going on, at least in the lead.

Gary King (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As i said in the previous FAC, if the Performance tour is merged with the Promotion and release section, the flow would be a lot better and you can avoid redundancy by not having to mention the USBs twice. You can get a bigger album cover too (300 x 300)indopug (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed both! Drewcifer (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't really support or oppose this as it stands now, though I would lean towards oppose. I see the prose and sourcing as a major weaknesses.

  • A number of the paragraphs throughout are stubby and could use fleshing out. (For example, the "Artwork" section.) Also, as another editor pointed out, there are few cases (especially in the lead) where there are repeated phrases and terms.
  • I combined the two short paragraphs in the Artwork section. As for the reptition in the lead, I think I addressed the concerns mentioned above, but if you have any more specific concerns, please let me know.
  • I'm also somewhat concerned about your sources' inherent neutrality (WP:NPOV). 23 of 78 (30%) references in the article are to Reznor, Nine Inch Nails, or an affiliated site. That percentage is worse when you exclude the references only used for chart positions and in the reviews section. You also allow Reznor to be the only speaker used for a good portion of the article. While I agree that those are fine sources, to have so much of the research devoted to them could be problematic. In the "Disputes" section, Reznor's point of view is given exclusively (saying that the music label didn't comment), but surely there were some secondary sources which gave a criticized him or at least provide an alternate perspective? Your passion for NIN comes out in the work, but possibly to the detriment of a neutral point of view.
  • Good points. I've done a bit of work to hopefully address this issue. As it now stands only 8 sources are directly from NIN/Reznor (out of 79 total, which makes it 6.32%). If you're looking at individual in-line citations, then there's 11 from NIN (out of an even 100, which makes it 11%). As far as "Affiliated" sites, the only "Affiliated" sources are UMG (Citation #39) and Internet Archive (#32). I presume you were referring to TheNINHotline, which isn't connected to NIN at all: they're an independent news-site which just happens to focus exclusively on NIN. They've been mentioned as sources of information in numerous other 3rd party reports, so are therefore for considered "reliable".
  • Just did a bunch more work on the pov stuff. The new count is 77 sources, only 6 of which are from NIN. (4.62% for those counting) In-line citation wise, there are 9 in-lines from NIN out of 103 (9.27%). And most of those are direct quotes or super specific facts (like the exact day it was finished being mixed). Does that seem a little more reasonable? Drewcifer (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not completely sure what you meant here. Who's "them"?

That's a start anyway, I'll take another look at it later. JRP (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved or close enough to resolved comments from Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • I agree with above comments about the neutrality issues with the sources.
  • Please see me comments since (above).
  • Also check out my more recent comments above. Drewcifer (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source still (I've seen it in other FACs) concerns me as being non-reliable.
  • Update on the Blabbermouth thing: I just ran across the Strapping Young Lad FAC (which you seem to have participated in already, so I suppose this is old news to you). Bardin did a pretty good job of defending the site, certainly a better job then I could, so please see his arguments. Drewcifer (talk) 06:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea what you mean here. Where should an nbsp be where there isn't currently one?
  • In May 2007, Reznor made a post on the official Nine Inch Nails website condemning Universal Music Group — the parent company of the band's record label, Interscope Records — for their pricing and distribution plans for Year Zero. Per MoS, em dashes should not be spaced.
  • Please be consistent with keeping the period either inside or outside the quotation marks. I see several inconsistencies.
  • Ugh, the logical quotation punctuation. The bane of my existence. If there's one WP policy I dispise more then anything, it's that one. But it's fixed anyways!=) All the periods should now come after the end quotation mark. Drewcifer (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final paragraph of the Music section needs a reference.
  • Prose could use some brushing up. Try getting a new copyeditor.

Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • WesleyDodds went through the article and copyedited pretty thoroughly. Please let me know if there's anything else you notice. Drewcifer (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Again, should halo numbers (in lead) have italics?
  • Sigh, well I feel silly. Fixed.
  • "while touring for With Teeth." - context. What's With Teeth?
  • Fixed.
  • Wouldn't [19] be a derivative of a copyrighted work?
  • Actually, it's derivative of a trademarked work, not a copyrighted one. Good catch, though. I've updated the image page to reflect this.
  • So the entire poster design is trademarked, not copyrighted? giggy (:O) 08:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yea. Basically, you can't copyright stuff that's basic geometry/text. Hence why a photo like this is also trademarked (just a random example I found from this category). I learned this just recently myself, which is why the NIN image's page didn't reflect that yet. Drewcifer (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'm aware of those rules, just wasn't sure in this case if that could be considered textonly. But it's cool. giggy (:O) 08:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "— the parent company of the band's record label, Interscope Records —" - spaced em dashes. Oh noes! (WP:DASH)
  • Huh, I thought it was the other way around. Fixed.
  • Reception section is really short...

giggy (:O) 04:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help and support. Drewcifer (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Some issues I've run into while copyediting the article:

  • There's nothing about chart positions, sales, or even the proper release of the album in the Release section.
  • It's now in the renamed "Reception" section.
  • That quote by Reznor in the lead is unnecessary. Might be worth working into the article body.
  • Moved it.
  • The article mentions where the album ranked on Rolling Stone's year-end list, but the magazine's review of the record is not used in the prose.
  • Made a mention of the review in the Reception section.
  • Reznor is a huge gearhead who likes experimenting. Seems like there'd be more sources available about the recording process. Can more information be included in the Recording section? WesleyDodds (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the relative lack of tons of information is due to the fact that the vast majority of the album was made by one person on a laptop, thus limiting people to say stuff about it, and, I guess, stuff to say in the first place other then "I made it on a laptop". Nonetheless I added a little bit more to it, but seriously I think I'm at my rope's end with that stuff. Drewcifer (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead says "Disputes arose between Reznor and Universal Music Group, parent company of Interscope Records, over the overseas pricing of the album, ultimately resulting in the severing of ties between the two parties", but this is not apparent in the article body, which doesn't link the disputes over pricing with Reznor's leaving the label. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't specifically say so, but I'd say the last two paragraphs of the Release and reception make it clear. A bit of rewording should fix it, Drewcifer. giggy (:O) 10:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I don't think it's as straightforward as you're making it. Reznor never said "YZ is too expensive in Australia, therefore I'm leaving." That was obviously part of it, but he never made a specific connection between the two. So, I reworded both to better reflect that. Drewcifer (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Minor comments
  • Any reason why Reznor is buried in the middle of the Personnel section?
  • Because it's in alphabetical order. I could go with who's most important, and so Reznor would obviously be first, but after that it gets a little fuzzy. I think the most NPOV way to do it is alphabetically. But I wouldn't be completely opposed to doing everyone alphabetical except Reznor. Drewcifer (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, do that; put Reznor on top and leave the rest. indopug (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • is "also known as Halo 24" correct? Its a catalog number isn't it (its in the infobox next to Interscope too)?
  • Yea, it's not exactly a catalog number, not exactly a AKA. I guess it's a catalog number in relation to NIN, but not Interscope, since the Halo number thing extends past the Interscope years. So I think I'm ok with the way it is now (treats it as if it's catalog number in the infobox, and as an AKA in the lead). I think it straddles the gap alright. But if you have some suggestions I've open to them. Drewcifer (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we list the United World Chart after its deletion?
  • I'd say it's alright, since not every chart in the world has an article, but it's usually still worth mentioning in an article like this. For example, you could say the same thing about "Swiss Albums Charts", since it doesn't have an article either. But then again, I don't know the circumstances of the UWC's article deletion. Drewcifer (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting stuff. I went ahead and took it off the article, since it seems it's on pretty shakey WP:V grounds. Drewcifer (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He further wrote that when he finishes a new album" confusing wording here; where did he write? He wasn't writing before, so why the "further"?
  • "including the second half of the three-minute song"? Since you've mentioned that its ending. indopug (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned the second half because of all the songs that have the outro thing, the Great Destroyer one is the longest and takes up the biggest percentage of it's song (50%). Does that make sense? Drewcifer (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've been doing some off-and-on copy-editing, mainly removing redundancies, and I've seen that Wes has done a thorough one too. This article has improved vastly since the last time, and is quite good now. indopug (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of your edits have been rock-solid. Thanks a bunch for your help and your support. Drewcifer (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Was the performance that featured the fake SWAT team part of the Performance 2007 tour, or was is a separate event? WesleyDodds (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking I suppose it wasn't a part of the tour itself, but the alternate reality game, but the fake SWAT-team performance occurred pretty much concurrently to both, so I guess it's in a bit of a gray area. Drewcifer (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cite 22 mentions the "resistance meeting", but it doesn't mention the concert. Can we get a reference describing the impromptu concert? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Should be fixed now. Drewcifer (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards support I don't really listen to anything but classical music, but this article gave me a good idea of what this album was about and the kinds of music are on it. However, I think a few places need a bit more detail:

  • Reznor drew inspiration from his concern at the state of affairs in the United States and at what he envisioned as the country's political, spiritual, and social direction. - What was that state of affairs and what direction did he want the country to go in?
  • Added a little bit more context. Do you think that this addresses the next comment as well? I mean, I don't want to repeat myself. Drewcifer (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actully, if you are only going to include this information once, I would include it in the "Themes" section, which is supposed to explain in the detail the content of the album. Awadewit (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, moved the explanation down to the Themes section. Drewcifer (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It criticizes the American government's policies, and that the album "could be about the end of the world". - Again, what policies?
  • Reznor displayed displeasure at the extra $10 added to the CD's price in Australia for the thermo-coating, saying it only cost an extra 83¢ per CD and that he incurred the additional cost - A little confusing - what does "he incurred the additional cost" mean here?
Reworded a little bit. Hopefully that's clearer. Drewcifer (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was wondering if more shouldn't be included about the game, but I noticed that the game article itself is very patchy. Has not much been published on the game?
A fair amount has been published about the game, and I could definitely expand upon it, but my intention was to avoid getting into too many details and focus on parts of the game that relate back directly to the album and the promotion of it. I would also argue that too much detail about the game is going to loose the lay-reader, since it all gets a little crazy. Drewcifer (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was wondering if there should be a separate subsection on the game and a bit more on what the game actually is. The promotional description is excellent, but I was left not quite knowing what the game was, if you see what I mean. Awadewit (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, pretty much the entire Promotional section talks only about the game, so I'm hesitant to expand it much more. However, you're probably right that the article doesn't give enough of an explanation of the game for the lay-person. So, I added a bit of a quick-summary to hopeffuly clear up any confusion that might arise. What do you think? Drewcifer (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new material explains the media of the game, but not really what the game was about. Can you explain the storyline of the game in another sentence or two? Awadewit (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phew. Well, I couldn't manage to do it in just a few sentences, but an extra paragraph did the trick I think. Drewcifer (talk) 08:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is wonderful! I have a much better idea of the politics in the game and album because of this, by the way. Awadewit (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:USBM warning.jpg - I'm also not totally sure that this image is necessary, since it is described in the text and is itself almost entirely text. (The rest of the image licenses seem ok to me.)
I think it works, but if you're totally against it suppose I could take it out and the article wouldn't be terribly ruined. Drewcifer (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just wondering if it meets the high fair use standards we have, since it is basically just a copy of text. Is that really necessary? Awadewit (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I took it out. Drewcifer (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can just reprint the information in one of those quote boxes. indopug (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine without. It's explained pretty clearly in the prose anyways. Drewcifer (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not checked any of the sources - I will leave that to others more versed in this area than myself. This was interesting article to read - I surprised myself by thinking "maybe I should go download some of these songs"! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, comprehensiveness concerns have been reasonably addressed; no sources could be found for the LP. --Laser brain (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Oppose, 1b (comprehensiveness). The article is well-written, but it is missing information from a lot of articles containing analysis and criticism of the album. No mention of all album formats, either, which is a big miss for a featured article candidate. Some minor items below, but further research is needed to make this comprehensive. I will post some examples on FAC talk page.[reply]
Issues resolved. --Laser brain (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that the article doesn't incorporate every possible source out there isn't necessarily a bad thing right? I'm sure every FA has some additional sources that aren't used simply because they repeat stuff that's already been cited. That said, I'll run down to the library and take a look at those magazines to see if I can find something new. Just out of curiosity, how'd you find those? Drewcifer (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, not necessarily a bad thing. But, whenever I see a shorter article it's a red flag for me that all sources might not have been used. I hit a relevant database (I used Academic Search Premier for this) and scan the list of results. If I see more than a handful of substantive articles that were not used, I raise a comprehensiveness concern. --Laser brain (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can see how that would be a good measuring stick of an article's comprehensiveness, but looking at the sources you mentioned on the talk page, the only thing of major importance that I've been able to glean is more critical reception stuff. (Actually, one article had first-week sales, which a small but nice fact to include, so that's I guess that's not completely true). So, in other words, using those sources is only resulting in an expansion of an already decent-sized section (IMHO). There's always more critical opinion one can add to an album article, but that doesn't mean it should (be added). You could say the section has reached .... critical mass. Drewcifer (talk) 08:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fair enough. If you say you have reviewed additional sources and didn't find anything else worth mentioning, I will strike my 1b concern. Please see my note below though.. I would like to have information about the LP. --Laser brain (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The album produced two singles, "Survivalism" and "Capital G", the latter of which released as a promotional single." Suggest "the latter released"
    • "In a 2005 interview with Kerrang!, Trent Reznor expressed his intentions to write material for a new release while on tour to promote the group's fifth album ..." Double-meaning as written.
      • I don't follow you on this one. Could you explain? Drewcifer (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It could mean that he intended to write material while on tour, or that he expressed his intentions while on tour. --Laser brain (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see. But now that you mention it, both are true. So the double meaning isn't really a bad thing, is it? Drewcifer (talk) 08:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Attention needed to quotation punctuation per MOS.
      • What exactly needs to be fixed? All instances of logical quotation punctuation (punctuation after end quotation mark) seem to be fixed. Is there something obvious I'm missing? Drewcifer (talk) 08:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Grrr. I'm getting mixed messages here. I agree 100% with you, and this has been a point of contention in a few FACs I've nominated. Unfortunately most reviewers seems to insist that every period should come after the quotation regardless of where the period comes in the quote itself, so I've changed all of them to satisfy another reviewer (I forget who). Is there an MOS on this I can refer to so that I can stop redoing the same stuff over and over again? Drewcifer (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure, see WP:PUNC: "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation; this system is referred to as logical quotation." If someone told you otherwise, they are wrong. --Laser brain (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If a quote is a complete sentence, the period should be inside the closing quote. An example is the first quote in the Recording section. --Laser brain (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, went through the whole article and checked/fixed all the quotes that needed it. Should be good now. Drewcifer (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Toward" is preferred over "towards" in American English.
    • Why no mention of the LP? --Laser brain (talk) 04:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what there is to say about album formats, so that's a non-issue for this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there is no need to mention all the album formats unless critically discussed (like it is in, say, In Rainbows). Writing "The album was released in CD, LP, digital download formats and was available in a special edition exclusively from Amazon. It was released in US, UK, Australia, and in Japan (with an additional track)" is just boring; we aren't repository of indiscriminate release information. indopug (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well in this case, the LP had special qualities like the CD did. The LP had special artwork and extras that even the CD didn't have. So it's information about the album that in my mind is required for a comprehensive article. --Laser brain (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In all my research, I haven't come across any mention of special stuff for the LP. Where did you find that info? I guess I can include it if it comes from a reliable source. Drewcifer (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't have a source. I happen to own the LP. I'll help look for a source; if I can't find one detailing the LP features, I'll strike this item. --Laser brain (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any update on this? The LP is quite interesting as one of the sides has etching in it and other features - should be mentioned here. --Laser brain (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So far only a few minor leads. A quick google search of "Year Zero+LP" brings up plenty of hits, but none all that reliable. Best I found was this. I also scaned through all of the sources I've used so far and did a search for the words "LP" "Vinyl" and "gatefold" on all of them. Nothing. Last, I skimmed through the nin hotline archives, and I did find this, which seems like the best lead, but nothing 100% yet. Drewcifer (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million for your help. I'll keep looking for a source about the LP. Drewcifer (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support — Article and sources look great. Good job. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Thanks so much for the support and the kind words! Drewcifer (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I feel like some of the "Related Works" section may be irrelevant, especially the television/film information. I'm not sure how it really pertains to the album. Otherwise I'm pleased with the way the article has shaped up since the last two FACs. NSR77 TC 07:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the kind words. As for the related projects section, I think it's a pretty low-impact section, so I think it's cool as it is. Besides has a television show or feature film ever been created around a concept album? I think that's pretty notable stuff, even if nothing comes of it. Drewcifer (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:08, 28 June 2008 [20].

Myst III: Exile[edit]

Ooh, big imposing 'Read this' now before I start the page, interesting... Well then. We all know the drill, I brought the other previous two games here in the last couple months, now it’s time for round three (and if you think I haven’t finished mining this particular ore vein, there’s still four other video games after this one… I’m going chronologically. *Evil Laugh*) Images properly tagged, got all the requisite sections to be complete, quite stable. The article has had a peer review, and since I know I’m weaker with prose I got some copyediting help prior to dropping it here. I popped over to the regal Ealdgyth to make sure my delightfully tangy sources were of the reliable type, and with said preparation I now submit it for your consideration. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I gave it the usual copyedit, dash cleanup, and reference formatting pass. One thing I noticed about the ref formatting: you had all the newspapers entered in the 'publisher' parameter (resulting in no italics), and the gaming websites entered in the 'work' parameter (resulting in italics). I'm pretty sure this is backwards, no? I've switched the newspaper ones to use the work parameter, as I'm positive about that. One other question: is another screenshot possible, given that UbiSoft gave blanket permission for user-created screenshots? Maralia (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, newspapers should have italics, and gaming websites shouldn't. (Random example; GameSpot ref 13 [21] shouldn't have italics.) And yeah, another screenshot would be all good (and free!). giggy (:O) 09:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and published by Ubisoft." - it's a bit unclear as to if Ubisoft published the first two.
  • "versions for the Xbox and PlayStation 2 were released later." - less vague? What year, even?
  • "by writing descriptive book." - missing a word?
  • "The project required millions of US dollars" - again, can you be less vague?
    • "Presto spent millions of dollars developing the game," - here too
  • "GameSpot's editor Greg Kasavin described the Myst series as having lost its relevance.[2]" - why is ref 2 Time magazine, not GameSpot?
  • "Despite fairly strong sales, Presto Studios eventually dropped software development entirely" - any idea why? Was it related to this game?
  • "like those in the earlier Myst games, were used again" - the "again" seems slightly redundant.
  • "to have as much "purpose" as possible" - can this not be quoted?
  • "It eventually sold one million units within the first twelve months of release" - eventually is redundant
  • The reviews box doesn't list anywhere near as many reviews as are cited in the reception section... (pet peeve)
  • ""Exile has everything you loved or hated about Myst and Riven." - check italics
  • "The next game in the Myst series, entitled Revelation, would be produced and published by Ubisoft." - probably no harm in sourcing this.

giggy (:O) 10:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gone through and fixed redundancies, added the sources, reworded the 'purpose' bit so it makes more sense, clarified some bits. As to the GameSpot-Time thing; Time quoted Kasavin. As for millions of dollars, can't tell you for sure, because they only stated multi-million dollar budget in the source (Game Developer). Oh yeah, and for the reviews, I only put in the video game publications because the print sources didn't have scores. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support; all concerns addressed. giggy (:O) 23:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I rechecked them again even though I had checked them over previously). Ealdgyth - Talk 11:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "as "Myst," but" → "as 'Myst,' but" Gary King (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • fixed. 19:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Need to close the Peer Review. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some sort of template? I removed its transclutions, I didn't know what else to do. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Barely anything's on the external link to Mobygames; I would remove it.
  • "was given the task of creating the third Myst game after presenting its ideas to the creators of the franchise." Best to change passive to active. You brought in more passive with the lead audio info.
  • "Presto Studios eventually dropped software development entirely" A pedantic one maybe, but I'd replace the word "drop" here—it's too informal in this context for my liking.
  • A small reference to "Audio" should probably be made in the lead.
  • "The game also has an optional Zip mode, like Myst and Riven, to cross explored terrain quickly". I haven't played these games, so I don't have a clue what this mode is.
  • I'm assuming that the game is controlled by the mouse and keyboard only. You have stated that the mouse and keyboard are used for movement and picking up objects in separate sentences. If I've assumed correctly, it would be easier to simply say that the game is controlled mainly by the keyboard and mouse, as opposed to repeating the point.
  • "by a plague and nearly wiped out". Again, too informal for my linking.
  • The first paragraph of the story is written in past tense, and suddenly shifts to the present tense with the word "Suddenly". Maintain the same tense. "Suddenly" really should not be used at all, ever. "a mysterious man"?
  • "Releeshahn book" From what I read, there's no explanation of what this book is specifically.
  • "Presto spent millions of dollars" The specific currency should be specified, as in the lead.
  • "which nine months was spent" Were?
  • Pre-rendered is hyphenated in the WP article, so it probably should be here.
  • "which one reviewer described as "a collaboration of Jules Verne, Rube Goldberg and Claes Oldenburg".[6]" Save it for the "Reception" section. It shouldn't be here. No, my point was that information relating to critical reception shouldn't be in "Development".
  • "filled with physical props" As opposed to?
  • If the GR and MC ratings are given in the table, then I see no point in reiterating them in prose.
  • Having a paragraph dedicated to positive criticism, and then one for negative critcism is just basic. I think it would be preferable if the "Reception" was larger and organised by features such as graphics, gameplay etc. Pros and cons should be integrated.

Ealdgyth covered the sources, so I'll leave that. Nice work so far. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 12:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have fixed most of the grammar issues; as to the "book" portion, it states in the paragraph previous they serve as links to worlds known as Ages. The game rankings and metacritic scores are in the text because they give an informative snapshot of critical reception; as for the reception section itself, I've seen few video game FACs that don't use the positive-negative layout. As I see it, it's purely choice, and as the specific portions of the game were not elaborated on to the extent of other games, I don't think such a format would suit the content. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a different format is better for "Reception" section, but as you say, it's a matter of choice and preference. For GR and MC, I'm talking about why they are there as well as being in the table. This is redundant. Striked comments. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 14:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, removed it from the table. I put the goldberg quote in the development instead of reception because it describes a style, but is not clarified as a positive or negative aspect of the game in the review; I thought it would make more sense in development in order to give the reader some context to their styles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The last paragraph of the lead is a bit strange; it not only calls out specific reviewers and their comments but also introduces sources. On the last point, either the entire lead should thus be inline-sourced, or no sourcing at all be used; my inclination is to de-specify the reviewers and summarize their comments, as to not require the use of sources for specific quotes. Is there any chance of numbers for sales to compare against 10 million for Riven? --MASEM 13:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked the last bit to include sales. As for the reviewer comments, I just stuck in both because I thought they encapsulated the two sides of the coin, as it were, of reception. I went ahead and removed the refs as they aren't direct quotes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This might be a good trial case of an FAC to cross post to WikiProject Military history. More because WPMH puts out quality articles, and exceptional FAs. --Izno (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While Giggy gave his support, it appears that the italics issue he raised hasn't been fixed yet. Kariteh (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I only swapped the publishers to work the first time around. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think all issues have been addressed. Kariteh (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:08, 28 June 2008 [22].

Lince (tank)[edit]

Self-nominator JonCatalan (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed! JonCatalan (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Gary King (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the references used multiple times, like "Fabricantes alemanes de armas critican el programa del futuro tanque español", you can just merge them with WP:REFNAME.
  • Link the dates in " Bibliography" so they are expanded like at WP:CITE/ES.
  • Use en dashes for page ranges in references per WP:DASH.

Gary King (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I grouped all references with the same title (if an online news article) or the same page number (if published on paper). I also expanded the dates, and replaced dashes with en dashes. JonCatalan (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image concerns resolved, Kelly hi! 14:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It specifies where I got the image from. I don't know who the copyright holder is. JonCatalan (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh - I'm afraid if this can't be found the image will have to go. Can it be replaced? Kelly hi! 19:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the image is irreplaceable; I was surprised that someone found it, in the first place! JonCatalan (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate situations like this...if the image doesn't specify the copyright holder, it doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC#10a. I certainly agree that the image can't be replaced with a free one since the tank was not actually built. (I presume the mockup was destroyed as well?) Does an image with a verifiable copyright source exist in any of the dead-tree sources - Jane's, perhaps? Kelly hi! 19:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don't have it with me, I have Janes' Tank Recognition Guide and it doesn't mention the Lince. The Lince is pretty unknown, even inside Spain - not that many people interested in the subject. I'd like to know where that Czech site even got its information from (even though I can't understand it) - unfortunately, his email doesn't work. I am asking on tank-net, but that's not guaranteed to get any hits. I would contact the actual Spanish Ministry of Defense to see if this an archival photograph, but they are not likely to respond (I have tried in the past, concerning other issues). JonCatalan (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the source site copyrights everything to Daniel Machacek, I added that to the image as the copyright. JonCatalán (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is as good as it's going to get. I appreciate the research and don't think any problems remain, image-wise. Kelly hi! 14:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Couldn't "bidding for the Lince" be changed to just "bidding"?
  • Non-breaking space between unit and measurement.
  • Link decades in the lead - they do provide context.
  • "To achieve this, the Lince would use Rheinmetall's 120 mm L/44 tank-gun and German composite armor from the Leopard 2A4." - why the future tense?
  • "The Spanish government decided to upgrade its AMX-30Es in the late 1980s, which distracted attention from the program. It was eventually cancelled in 1990 when Spain adopted a large number of North American M60 Patton tanks retired from Europe in accordance with the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. " - it's unclear what the pronoun "it" is referring to. Consider rephrasing.

Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 19:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.
  1. Changed.
  2. Any measurement in particular? The only one I could find was in the infobox.
  3. Done!
  4. Changed to past tense.
  5. Changed 'it' to The Lince.
JonCatalan (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Is the Maquinas de Guerra ref Spanish language? Same for Candil Antonio Carros de Combate?
  • Current ref 23 is lacking a publisher (La Familia de tanques Patton) and should specifiy the language is Spanish. (I see it's listed at the bottom as Susorail ... is that the author or publisher? Probably should be listed in the footnote as Susorail...)
I wasn't able to evaluate the Spanish language sources. Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing here indicates reliability, a self-published site with collaborator input, no indication of fact-checking or oversight: http://www.militar.org.ua/militar/foro-militar-colaborar.html I can't find any indication that militar.org.ua would be a reliable source for any purpose. It should be replaced, particularly since it's being used to source hard data and gov't statements.
El País is fine, but it's a newspaper, hence should be italicized; it might also be linked.
I can't tell what this is, book? author? Is Planeta-Agostini a book publisher, magazine, what? (1984) Maquinas de Guerra: Carros de Combate Modernos. Planeta-Agostini. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those references are in Spanish, but every reference uses the template relevant to what type of source it is. There is nowhere to put 'Spanish' in the book template, unfortunately. This is the same for italicizing El País; it's simply put into the template under 'publisher', but the template does not italicize it. The source La Familia de tanques Patton has been exchanged for an article published in Military Technology. Maquinas de Guerra: Carros de Combate Modernos is an authorless book; it's similar to an encyclopedia. It was a series of 'books' which were published in the mid-80s on armor of the world (similar, but more in depth, to Janes' Tank Recognition). I changed the template to encyclopedia. JonCatalan (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added the same icon which was added to the Verdeja article to denote that the source is Spanish. JonCatalan (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some misunderstanding here (I speak Spanish, by the way); italics is accomplished on cite news by using the "work" parameter in place of the "publisher" parameter (el pais can be in italics by switching publisher to work), es icon can be added outside the cite template but inside the ref tags, and what about removing militar.org, which doesn't appear reliable for any purpose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jon, gimme a yell if you need help working out the citation templates. giggy (:O) 00:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you, I think I got it. JonCatalan (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Looking even better after the peer review, and glad to see the image issue was somewhat resolved!
  • "The Lince program was meant to complement Spain's fleet of AMX-30Es, like the one above." - perhaps "like the one pictured"... I'm not keen on the "above" since some browsers could display captions anywhere but below the image...
  • There's an edit link midway through the Background section... WP:BUNCHED?
  • "the Spanish Army had 299 AMX-30s, designated as AMX-30Es. 280 out of 299..." - "280 of these" would probably work better
  • "However, this time they added the lucrative term of joint export." - would sound better without the however

giggy (:O) 13:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Everything done! JonCatalan (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. giggy (:O) 00:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

The project started in the midst of modern tanks being introduced in Germany and the US, both of whom were pushing for major exports and more than willing to bend over backwards for things like local production (although the US was not willing to use the 120 at the time, an amusing story of its own). But no, Spain wanted to design and build their own. That's not unheard of by any means, but still deserves explanation.

Then, after about a decade of development, the Lince project disappears. Why? L2's being dumped on the market? Changing political winds at home? Budget cuts? Decreasing not-invented-here as Spanish politics grew more international after the 1980s? I'm sure there's some explanation, but again, it's missing.

Military projects are multi-billion dollar developments that often pour their money into a pit with nothing to show for it. The Lince appears to be one such example (there are many, I'm not picking on the Lince). Readers deserve to know what happened if they're going to be given a balanced view of the history. Spanish readers in particular would be well served by a complete description of where their tax dollars went, and why.

Don't get me wrong, the writing is pretty good, but its just not "complete". A quality for sure, but I simply can't call this FA.

Maury (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, as I keep trying to point out on the talk page, is that it's explained to the best of what is available in sources. I will quote the exact sentence - Due to the modernization of the AMX-30, the decision to replace older Patton tanks with the M60A3 and Krauss-Maffei's criticism of the management of the indigenous tank program, the Lince was canceled in 1989. This is also touched upon in an earlier sentence - However, the Spanish government did not announce any winner for the contract. This indecision led Krauss-Maffei to freeze their bid for the Lince. I mean, I could add to the article that the Lince was expensive and that the upgrade of AMX-30s was cheaper, but this would be an unsourced statement and based upon own research. I think that your criticism is unfounded, and largely based on the lack of knowledge on the subject. I don't meant to insult or anything like that, but I honestly don't see what the major issue is. I think that you believe that there was more to it, and from sources there is clearly not. JonCatalan (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an online article on the subject, which I can't source because it's not veriefiable, but it says exactly the same thing as the article - Pronto oscuros nubarrones se cernieron sobre el programa, por un lado por la falta de definición del Ministerio y por otro por los problemas que surgieron entre los dos contratistas principales. That sentence says - Soon dark clouds appeared over the program due to the lack of indecision on the part of the Minister of Defense and other problems with surged between the two main contractors. This is mentioned in the article, although I will add that Krauss-Maffei also critisized the program due to the mismanagement of funds, which is covered by one of the sources. I should note that it's mentioned that a billion dollars were put aside, but this does not mean all of them were used. Leopard 2E JonCatalan (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the article currently contains the best information you have available. I am happy with the reason for cancellation now. So what was the reason the project started? IE, why did they not buy one of the existing tank designs? I'm sorry, but a 5 tonne reduction in weight, given that it has the same performance figures, does not satisfy me that it was the real reason. As you say, it's a billion dollars, surely that deserves a little digging? Maury (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, does it really matter what you think? No offense intended, but you are not the Spanish Ministry of Defense. Whether there reasons were correct or not, in your opinion, is irrelevant to the reason why the program was carried out. Something that isn't within the scope of the article, but provides some 'background' information is that when the Spanish government first approached the German government in late 1993 and then in 1994 the German government was still not interested in selling the Leopard 2, and even offered Spain surplus Leopard 1s and surplus Soviet equipment integrated into the German Army during the reunion of West and East Germany. This should provide insight on the realism of acquiring the Leopard 2 in the 1980s. As the article mentions neither the British or the Americans were interested in offering Spain a contract for indigenous production, which is why their bids were not accepted. As in inferred by the article, the French bid was never 'officially' rejected, but it's obvious that Spain was more interested in a partnership with Krauss-Maffei. KM's Lince bid was a smaller Leopard 2A4, and so the difference is just in protection. I don't understand what is the issue. JonCatalan (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a sentence to the article, based on a 'technicality' - Specifically, the Lince prioritised mobility over the irregular Spanish terrain. I hope that this clears up that mobility does not only encompass maximum road velocity. JonCatalan (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man, I just hit the jack pot. I was working on the Leopard 2E article in my sandbox, and looking over one of the sources (also used in the Lince article) and read over a page that mentioned that the reduced size of the Lince was due to limitations imposed by Spain's railroad network! JonCatalan (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) You see? Aren't you glad I asked? Maury (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that I have adressed and solved the issues, is there any possible way of getting that opposed retracted? Thanks! JonCatalan (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm still skeptical. Given that I have personally witnessed the L2 being transported by train, I am not convinced that this was a real problem. My issue here is that the public statements of government officials are very rarely the whole truth, and it's the whole truth that we strive for here. I will, however, withdraw my Oppose, as it is my only major concern and it seems that no one else cares. Maury (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, which train? Why assume that everyone has the same capabilities? I note the issues that Australia had with their train beds for transporting the M1 when they first got them. It's not a simple issue, and Spain's MBT size had for the most part remained the same since 1954. My issue is that the lack of evidence to support your theory, in my opinion, means that you shouldn't be opposing an article based on opinion - when the article is clearly referenced. I'm sorry to sound blunt or rude, as I'm a bit frustrated because you clearly did not read the entire article either (it seems from your comment below that that was the first time you had read about the Valiant in regards to the article). I just see it as a bit unfair and unfounded. JonCatalán (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A very informative and thorough read (and especially after hearing Jon's explanation here, which cleared up some very similar questions I had after reading). I think this article has real merit. Octane [improve me?] 16.06.08 2123 (UTC)
  • Comment - since the answer to the question may have some validity to its rating. Why is does the tabel compare the Lince to the Leclerc Leopard 2 and the Abrams M1? At no point in the text can I see the M1 mentioned as a possible alternative to the Lince, only the M60 is mentioned. Surely the M1 should be replaced with the M60 so the reader can compare what they Spanish did use (in the short term) compared with what they might have built and what they did build? GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Well, they are mentioned in the text, under bidding. They were all alternate bids (except the Leopard 2 - the Leopard 2 is what was eventually procured around 6 years after the cancelation of the Lince program). From the text - The French government proposed to cooperate with Spain in designing a tank complete with new technology—they would later develop this program on their own as the AMX-Leclerc... The Italian government proposed a similar deal for a cooperative tank design. The American company General Dynamics and British company Vickers offered the M1 Abrams and Valiant, respectively; the Spanish government rejected their offers the following year because of the low likelihood of local production and export of the tank. JonCatalán (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's one problem here, Vickers clearly didn't suggest the Valiant. The only Vickers design of the era is the Challenger, and among it's many names I don't seem to recall Valiant. Nor do I recall the MBT-80 being called this either. Are you sure this wasn't the Chief Mk.VI or something of the sort? Maury (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they did. There is just no article on the tank on Wikipedia. The Vickers Valiant is the same as the Vickers Mk. 7, which was also presented for the Chieftain Replacement Programme (see: Dunstan, Simon, Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank 1987-2000, Osprey Publishing, p. 6). This was also brought up in the archived peer review, and I provided this link. A Google search will provide results, as well. JonCatalán (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found the page - Vickers MBT JonCatalán (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see it now, I must have skipped past. So does the Vickers suggestion merit featuring in the table too? I still suggest that the M60 is added to the table for comparison.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the Vickers, I would agree, but at the moment I lack a reliable source for it. I will add the M60, however. JonCatalán (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status? Has Maury been pinged to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I actually pinged him twice - but his argument doesn't change. I've already stated the reasons I believe he is in the wrong (I apologize if this sounds a bit hostile - it's not intended) - but, it's hard to prove otherwise when the same argument is being used irregardless ('well, I think that the Ministry of Defense is lying'). He retracted his oppose, but didn't strike it out: I will, however, withdraw my Oppose, as it is my only major concern and it seems that no one else cares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalan (talk • contribs) 22:43, June 26, 2008
  • Support w/one comment: In the last paragraph on the Bidding section you have cited 17 three seperate times when no other citation appears to inturupt the flow; I would suggest eliminating the first two instances of the cite and just leaving the cite at the end of the paragraph. This is more of an asthetic thing though, so I won;t complian if it isn;t changed. Overall this is a Featured Article. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done! JonCatalán (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:08, 28 June 2008 [23].

Zhang Heng[edit]

This article was granted GA status back in April of 2007, and has seen slow but monumental improvement since then. The article is stable, the images are sourced, the subject (the ancient Chinese scientist Zhang Heng) is thoroughly detailed and laid out in several sections, and as of now the article boasts 90 inline citations from 30 different reference sources.--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Looks very good, but there's a few things: (permission to nitpick?)
  • "Zhang had extensive knowledge of mechanics and gears, applying this knowledge to several of his known inventions." - Knowledge twice in a row in the same sentence, can we avoid this?
  • "According to historian Joseph Needham, Zhang Heng was noted in his day for being able to "make three wheels rotate as if they were one".[1]" - Why exactly is this in the lead?
  • "When the official Dan Song proposed that the Chinese calendar should be reformed in 123 to adopt certain apocryphal teachings," - Slight signs of redundancy, but nothing major.
  • "Meanwhile, officials Liu Zhen and Liu Taotu, who were members..." - Is 'Meanwhile' the best word to use here? In a novel, it would be fine - but it just doesn't sound right in this particular case.
  • "However, Zhang was barred from this due to because of his controversial views on apocrypha as well and his view that Emperor Gengshi (r. 23–25)..." - 1) What is 'this'? Since you've started a new sentence, it's best to reinstate what was being said to avoid confusion. 2) I think my proposed wording change is beneficial to the readability.
  • "However, his intensive astronomical work was rewarded only with the rank and salary of 600 bushels, or shi, of grain (also commuted to cash); to place this number in context, in a hierarchy of twenty official ranks, the lowest-paid official earned the rank and salary of 100 bushels and the highest-paid official earned 10,000 bushels during the Han." - 1) Why is 'however' being used? I don't see a contradiction to the previous sentence. 2) This sentence is very long, can we break it up a bit to improve readability?
  • "However, Zhang's official status at court saw considerable improvement." - I'm not entirely sure 'however' should be used here, either.
  • Split your References section into References and Further reading sections, since not all of those books have been used for the footnotes.
  • I'm sure there's similar little things throughout the article, but I won't continue because the article is long and so my comments could also get very lengthly.
  • I don't think a prose polish would hurt, so I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages!

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wackymacs. I have amended the article according to your suggestions, except for the further reading one, since I couldn't find the reference which you were talking about that was not already cited in the article. As for copyediting, I have contacted User:Scartol on this issue. Thanks for commenting!--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you contact someone other than Scartol? As stated on their Talk page, they're busy at the moment! Thanks. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! My mistake. I've contacted User:AndonicO instead.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - After reading through the article, I've found the prose is much improved. This article provides a good, fully-referenced read. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. One thing, the graphical curly pull quotes are frowned on by the MOS, I believe. Double check, but I am pretty sure that's the case. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked WP:MOS and I could not find anything in the section on quotations that said curly quotes were prohibited or frowned upon; I didn't use them necessarily for regular blockquotes, only for quoted lines of poetry.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's at Wikipedia:MOS#Quotations under "Block quotations": "Block quotes are not enclosed in quotation marks (especially including decorative ones such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template, used only for pull quotes)." Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, I'll get rid of them. One question though, if they are not to be used, why do they exist in the first place?--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your guess is as good as mine, I don't have the foggiest idea. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{cquote}} is (according to its instructions) intended for pull quotes instead of block quotes. I haven't seen many pull quotes in articles (they are a staple of journalism). In-text block quotes are far more common in Wikipedia articles. BuddingJournalist 22:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could a caption be provided for the image in the infobox? BuddingJournalist 13:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is temporarily removed due to a bogus copyright issue, but this will soon be resolved by an administrator over at Commons, as the person who tagged the image (who doesn't even have an account) is almost certainly there for troublemaking, as the license is already fully described and the image, made by the PRC, was made in 1955 with a fifty-year copyright status.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "instrument [73]" – missing a period
  • Use en dashes for page ranges in the references per WP:DASH
  • Consider adding {{persondata}} to the article
  • When you are doing conversions, "500 km (310 miles)" → "500 kilometers (310 mi)". Ensure the entire article uses this method, per MOS:CONVERSIONS
  • Use either American or British spelling, but not both. You have "behavior" and "behaviour", for instance. Recheck the entire article.

Gary King (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gary, I fixed the missing period, the en dashes in the reference section, the unit conversions, and that instance of British spelling of "behaviour". I am an American and the prime editor of this article (no British fellows contributing to it as far as I know), so I think that one case you found was a minor slip-up of mine. As for the person data, there is already an infobox for this in the lead; is there additional person data you would like to see in the article?--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, some prose issues, like "in order to" → "to" Gary King (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this up, I have fixed two instances where there was the phrase "in order to" into just "to".--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wow! Check out the article now, I've added a significant amount of new material and pictures just today, including a nifty marble carving of the Greek scientist Ptolemy. Why him, you ask? Well go read the article and find out! Lol. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose for now, mainly because of some prose glitches/concerns. All taken care of, supporting * Lead - Second sentence of the first paragraph "...began his career in a minor civil service in ..." something is off there. I would have fixed it but wasn't quite sure if you wanted " ... in the minor..." or something else.

  • Lead - second paragraph, instead of "incredibly far distances" perhaps give the maximum distance?
  • Early life - wouldn't "born in the town/village of Xi'e in Nanyang Commandery..." work a bit better?
  • Early life - what does "not incredibly affluent" mean? Poor? Middle class? Well off but not rich?
  • Early life - Instead of "notable persons such as Cui Yuan, Ma Rong, and Wang Fu" can we say what they were notable for? If they were scholars/court officials/scientists/teachers etc?
  • Early life - this sentence "With his talents known, many promotions were offered to Zhang that would have greatly advanced his career, such as positions as one of the Three Excellencies, yet he acted modestly and turned these invitations down." reads awkwardsly to me. Maybe "With his talents known, many positions to advance his career, including becoming one of the Three Excellencies, were offered to Zhang, who modestly turned them down." I'm also a bit uncomfortable with the "with his talents known..." phrase, as I'm not sure it connects well with the previous sentence nor are we told exactly how his talents became known.
  • Early life, the phrase "... staffed as a master of documents..." is awkward. Perhaps, "... serving as the master of documents..." would work better?
  • Official career, first paragraph, do you mean "Returning to serve at the capital, an carriage escort was provided to Luoyang, where..." And why is the carriage escort so important?
  • Official career - first paragraph, perhaps explain/wikilink what a memorial is? Most readers will be thinking of something like an obituary, not a type of official correspondence.
  • Official career - second paragraph this phrase "... should not be relegated to a minor position in comparison to his successor Emperor Guangwu in restoring the Han Dynasty." reads awkwardly to me. Perhaps adjust to "... the relegation of Genshi's role in the restoration of the Han Dynasty as lesser than Emperor Guangwu's."?
  • Official career - fourth paragraph, when did his official status improve and why? The reader is left hanging here.
  • Official career fifth paragraph, this phrase "... so his political enemies relished in his device's failure." is awkward to me. Perhaps "... his political enemies relished the failure of his device."?
  • Literature and poetry fourth paragraph "In exemplifying his attention to detail..." i think you can drop the "in"?
  • Literature and poetry section, fourth paragraph, this phrase doesn't make much sense "Zhang listed a variety of different animals and hunted game inhabiting the park" do you mean "listed a variety of different animals and hunting game" or do you mean that he listed the animals and that he hunted them also? If the second, it is awkwardly placed in the sentence.
  • Same section "Somewhat similar to the description of Sima Xiangru, Zhang described the Western Han emperors and their entourage enjoying boat outings and sights of water plays, fishing, and archers shooting birds and other animals with stringed arrows from the tops of tall towers along Chang'an's Kunming Lake." Also, wouldn't "displays of archery" work better than the last phrase?
  • Same section, fifth paragraph, I'd replace "self-conclusion" with "conclusion"
  • Same section, sixth paragraph, first sentence consider changing to "Zhang wrote about the love affairs of the emperoros, who, not satisfied with the imperial harem, went out into the city incognito to seek out prostitutes and sing-song girls." Probably should explain what a sing-song girl is also.
  • Same section and paragraph "This was seen as a general criticism of present the Eastern Han emperors..."
  • Extra tank section, "Indicated in his writing in 117, ..." that phrase is awkward, perhaps "Zhang Heng was the first to address this problem, indicated in some of his writings from 117, ..."
  • Same section, perhaps wikilink "clock jacks"?
  • Water-powered armillary sphere section, last paragraph, i'm not sure what "ingenious model" has to do with the sentence it's in (second of the paragraph) perhaps cut the phrase to make the sentence clearer?
  • Same section and paragraph, third sentence, do you mean that the use of the device continued?
  • Same section and paragraph, last sentence, do you mean "when" instead of "while" to introduce the last phrase? Otherwise I'm not sure what the sentence is getting at here.
  • Zhang's seismometer section, first paragraph, second sentence consider replacing "devastive" with "destructive"?
  • Same section, do we need the long discourse on the theories of the ancient greeks about the origins of earthquakes? I can see the Chinese theories being relevant... but the Greek?
  • Likewise, unless the modern developments of seismometers were based on Zhang's device, I don't think we need to detail the development of the devices...
  • Science and technology, first paragraph, first sentence "...inventions influenced the likes of later Chinese inventors..."
  • Poetic literature, first sentence, I think you mean "Zhang's poetry was widely read during his life and after his death." As it reads now, it was only read while he was dying and after his death.
Nice interesting article, be glad to support when some of these issues/concerns are addressed. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: Hello. Thank you for taking the time to critique this article. I have revised the article according to each and every one of your bulletted suggestions. However, I have qualms with just one of your statements:

Official career, first paragraph, do you mean "Returning to serve at the capital, an carriage escort was provided to Luoyang, where..." And why is the carriage escort so important?

First of all, he's not just "returning" to the capital. The first time he ventured there he came to study and gain a prestigious education. He was then later called to serve in the capital where he was nominated to serve in an unspecified office, joining a pool of court gentlemen (lang) waiting for an official assignment, which for him was eventually Chief Astronomer and then Prefect of the Majors for Official Carriages. As for the carriage escort, yes, this is important, because it is symbolic of his status as an official. He didn't just ride in to the capital alone on horseback. If you read the caption of the picture to the immediate right, it specifically states that Zhang would have rode in a specified type of carriage that demarcated his position in the official hierarchy. At the time of writing the prose, I thought it would be overkill to mention this twice in the article, but if this is an issue with you, I will also include this information in the prose.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally of the opinion that all important information should be in the article, because not everyone is going to read the captions along with the text of the article. Some will read them before, some will read them after, some won't ever read them (I'm generally in the last camp when reviewing, I hate to admit!) I'd rather see it explained in the article text also, but if you strongly feel it shouldn't be, i certainly won't oppose for only that. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. I have revised the article to make a short mention about the carriage escort. I do not disagree with you or your reasoning, it's just that at the time I first wrote the paragraph, I did not see the carriage escort as something needing a side comment explanation.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, what can I say, I am a curious person! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The last copyedit tilted me over the edge. Nice work! Karanacs (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. The article appears quite comprehensive and detailed. I think the prose could use some work. There is a lot of unnecessary verboseness-a tighter prose would definitely read better for an article of this length. I've done some copyediting - please check to make sure the meaning is still accurate and see those changes as examples of some of the overly wordy sentences that need to be fixed.
    • Is there a reason all of the images are on the right? I would recommend that some be moved to the left to vary the layout a bit. This might also fix a few issues that my resolution is having - there is white space in several areas because images are stacked on top of each other
    • "he was given many posthumous honors in his own day and throughout the centuries." - if given in his own day they would not be posthumous honors, right?
    • "Any fleeting opportunity that Zhang might have had in serving as a court historian was closed to him with the death of Liu Zhen and Liu Taotu" - This sentence seems a little overdramatic and unnecessary to me.
    • "Zhang was not the first to have suffered politically for disregarding apocrypha" - I am not sure about phrasing this as "suffered politically" - did it harm his career not to be involved with the history?
    • Why go into detail on Han Tan's apocryphal text issues here? I don't know that I would include that in this article.
    • I am very confused at how the two parts of the paragraph that begins "In 132, Zhang introduced an intricate seismometer" are related to each other. Half of the paragraph talks about the seismometer and then the second half talks about a new recruitment system??
    • Is the rejection of his memorial directly tied to his elevation to Palace Attendant? If not, I'd lose or reword the sentence "memorial was rejected, yet his status was significantly elevated soon after to Palace Attendant, a position he used to influence the decisions of Emperor Shun."
    • Is it really necessary to include the entire description from the Book of Later Han? The last paragraphof this is already detailed in the article in the Life section.
    • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, quotations of less than 4 lines should not be offset. They should be in the paragraph instead. See Posthumous honors for several issues with this.

Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, concerns addressed! --Laser brain (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Comments, leaning toward support. The prose is mostly up to par with a few glitches:[reply]
    • Concur with Karanacs that the right-aligning of all images is rather unpleasant. It really messes up the text - for example, the "edit" link for the "Odometer and South Pointing Chariot" heading appears next to "Poetic literature" for me. Consider staggering.
    • "He was educated in the capital cities of Luoyang and Chang'an ..." Suggest "ancient capitals" to clarify that they are not currently capitals.
    • "Zhang had extensive knowledge of mechanics and gears, applying this to several of his known inventions." Wordy.. why not "Zhang applied his extensive knowledge of mechanics and gears to several of his known inventions." to avoid the ambiguous "this"?
    • "Zhang's memorial criticized the new recruitment system of Zuo Xiong which fixed the age of eligible candidates for the title 'Filial and Incorrupt' at age forty." I don't get how this connects to what was just written. His memorial? Isn't that for when someone has died?
    • "Zhang's long lyrical poems also revealed a great amount of information on urban layout and basic geography, with his rhapsody "Sir Based-On-Nothing" providing details ..." The "with <noun> -ing" construction is ungrammatical. Revise.
    • Attention needed to non-breaking spaces between numerals and their units - things like "3rd century". --Laser brain (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Hello, thank you both for commenting and sharing input on how to improve this article. I have not been able to respond as I have been volunteering for the past 3 days at Personal Democracy Forum at the Jazz at Lincoln Center in New York. I just got back to the D.C. area by train, I'm tired, cranky, and I want to go to sleep! Lol. I will address all of these issues tomorrow, I assure you. I've read through most of them and they seem easy enough to fix. Cheers!--Pericles of AthensTalk 05:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello once again. I have addressed all of your concerns, but there are a few of your questions which I would like to answer.
    • "This sentence seems a little overdramatic and unnecessary to me." - Really? How so? They were the only two historian allies that Zhang had, and once they were dead, Zhang had no chance to 'rub elbows' so to speak and find a means to work on a committee compiling official histories. Instead of acquiring a prestigious post as a court historian (who could have controlled how the past was viewed) he was stuck in his relatively minor position earning 600 bushels a year...at least until he was promoted to Palace Attendant.
    • "Is the rejection of his memorial directly tied to his elevation to Palace Attendant?" - No, but I presume that the substance of his memorial was loosely associated with his elevation at court. Whether it was through the prestige he gained from presenting his seismometer or his elegantly-written diatribe (or a combination of both), he certainly gained the admiration and trust of the emperor.
    • "His memorial? Isn't that for when someone has died?" - Yes and no. In this case, a funeral is not the topic of discussion. If you read the first paragraph of that same section there is a description (in parentheses) of what a memorial is in regards to documents submitted to the court.
    • That's all folks.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks a lot better with the image placement changes - thank you! As for the sentence I though overdramatic, perhaps it could be more neutrally worded and described a bit better. Maybe something along the lines of, "Liu Zhen and Liu Taotu were Zhang's only historian allies, and after their deaths Zhang had no further opportunities for promotion to the prestigious post of court historian." Karanacs (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I reworded that sentence as you requested. It sounds better!--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, Laser Brain!--Pericles of AthensTalk 04:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments resolved --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. A very informative and interesting article, but I think there are still a few rough edges that need to be sorted out. I've listed some examples below:
  • "Zhang applied his extensive knowledge of mechanics and gears to several of his known inventions." Shouldn't that be "in several of his known inventions"?
  • "... invented the world's first seismometer device". Why seismometer device instead of just seismometer?
  • ... His political contention with palace eunuchs over influencing the policies of Emperor Shun ...". That reads very awkwardly to me. Would "rivalry" perhaps be better than "contention"? Not sure about "over influencing" either ...
  • For his scholarship and ingenuity, he was given many posthumous honors." Wouldn't "He received many posthumous honors for his scholarship and ingenuity" be simpler and more direct?
  • "Zhang Heng earned a specific salary and rank of 600 bushels of grain ...". What does "specific mean in this context? Fixed?
  • "... held a unique emblem that distinguished his status level ...". Why "status level"? Why not just "status"?
  • I'm a bit puzzled by some of the apparently inconsistent capitalisation in the article. For instance, "court historian" is not capitalised, but "Court Astronomer" is.
  • "Although at one point his device indicated an earthquake occurred in the northwest ...". Shouldn't this be either "was occurring", or "had occurred"?
  • "He was buried in his hometown in Xi'e, Nanyang Commandery, while his friend Cui Yuan composed the inscription for his tomb". So these two events happened at the same time?
  • I don't follow the logic behind the formatting of the titles of the poems. For instance, why is "Southern Capital Rhapsody" in quotes, but Four Sorrows is in italics?
  • "Zhang's 'shelun' or 'hypothetical discourse' involved a written dialogue between imaginary or real personas ..." Is "personas" correct here?
  • "In his poem "Xijing fu", Zhang also shows that he was aware of a new foreign religion, Buddhism, introduced via the Silk Road and the legend of the birth of Buddha with the vision of the white elephant bringing about conception." Not sure what this is trying to say. That Buddhism was introduced via the legend of the birth of Buddha, or that Zhang was aware of the legend. What is the relevance of the white elephant to either?
  • "For centuries the Chinese approximated pi as 3, while Liu Xin (d. AD 23) made the first known Chinese attempt at a more accurate calculation ..." I don't think "while" works here. Why not : "For centuries the Chinese approximated pi as 3; Liu Xin (d. AD 23) made the first known Chinese attempt at a more accurate calculation ..."? Or split into two sentences?
  • "Zhang Heng believed that one side of the moon was fully-lit with the reflected rays of light from the sun ..." I don't think that makes sense. Either the light comes directly from the Sun (which ought to be capitalised btw) or it's sunlight reflected off ... what? Heng's own quoted work indicates that he believed the Moon (also capitalised) was directly illuminated by the Sun.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response: Hello Malleus Fatuorum, I have addressed every one of your concerns. As for the white elephant, the reason I did not elaborate is because it would be too off-topic and there is a wikilink; if a reader is curious as to why it is significant that Zhang mentioned the white elephant story and got it correct in his writing, they can simply click on the link. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for dealing with the issues I raised so promptly. They were, of course, only examples though, and for me the article still has too many rough edges to allow me in all honesty to support it just yet. A few further examples:
  • "The theory posited by Zhang and Jing were supported by later pre-modern scientists ...". Theory is singular.
  • "Those parts of the Moon which the Sun illuminates took bright ...". Does the source say took?
  • "...Zhang introduced an intricate seismometer device ..." & "A year after Zhang presented his seismometer device to the court." We still have seismometer device in the article.
  • "... to rotate the astronomical instrument of the armillary sphere ...". What does that mean? The armillary sphere is the astronomical instrument.
  • "The water-powered armillary sphere of Zhang Heng would have profound effects ...". Had profound effects? Wouldn't Zhang Heng's water-powered armillary sphere had profound effects ..." be better?
  • "... believed they were the result of massive pieces of the earth falling into the cavernous hollows due to drying; and Aristotle (384–322 BC) believed they were caused by instability of vapor (pneuma) caused by the drying of the moist earth by the sun's rays. As before, Earth and Sun should both be capitalised.
  • "There were other early theories about earthquakes by those in ancient Greece." By those in ancient Greece? Developed by the Ancient Greeks? Shouldn't it be Ancient Greece anyway?
  • "It is a non-magnetic compass-vehicle shaped in the form of a wheeled chariot, and functioning off of differential gears." I think I understand what trying to be said here, but this isn't saying it.
  • "... Zhang Heng re-invented it from its earliest model found in the Zhou Dynasty period ...". An earlier model? Based on an earlier model? If he had a model to copy, in what sense did he re-invent it?
  • "Zhang Heng has also been given posthumous honors of several things named after him." Kind of clunky, don't you think?
  • "Xiahou Zhan (243–291), who came from an illustrious family intermarried with the ruling Cao family of the Wei Dynasty and then the ruling Sima family of the Jin Dynasty, nonetheless led a rather unsuccessful career as a minor official." This seems to come rather out of the blue. Who was Xiahou Zhan, and why is his unsuccessful career as a minor official relevant?
  • "While travelling to Luoyang ...". The article should make consistent use of either British or American spelling.
  • The lead tells us that "He was educated in the capital cities of Luoyang and Chang'an", but later talks about "being recalled to serve in the capital". Which capital?
  • "... and so he would have worn a specified type of robe, rode in a specificied type of carriage ...". Ridden in a specified ...
  • "Zhang Heng attempted to convince the Emporer". Please take another careful look through the whole article.
It may seem like I'm being very critical, but I don't think this article is a million miles away from being an FA, it's just not quite there yet IMO. I've done quite a bit of copyediting to it, and I'll have another go at it later/tomorrow, if SandyG will allow enough time before closing the nomination. Please bear in mind though that these are once again just examples of what needs looking at, not an exhaustive list. I will try to help, but please take a slow and careful look through the whole article yourself tomorrow. There really ought not to be obvious spelling mistakes at this stage of the game. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I'm adding these in as I copyedit, so the list may expand. · AndonicO Engage. 16:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I notice "Zhang" is used in the article as if it were his surname; I'm guessing that's a Chinese custom, but I just want to confirm my ignorance.
    • "His political rivalry with the palace eunuchs in influencing Emperor Shun's policies (r. 125–144) led to his retirement from the central court to serve as an administrator of Hejian, in Hebei." Did the fact that he had a rivalry get him retired, or that the emperor grew to dislike him? I'm sure it's explained lower down, but this sentence is not technically correct. Also, did he retire willingly, or was he "fired," so to speak?
    • I suggest it be mentioned that he was a polymath somewhere in the lead; that's certainly important. I suggest it be written in the last sentence, as it's a bit too short. Something along these lines, perhaps: "Zhang received many posthumous honors for his scholarship and ingenuity, and is often considered a polymath."
    • A few too many images in the article, I think; it looks cluttered. If you think they're all important, at least make them smaller (see cannon).
  • I'll add more later. · AndonicO Engage. 16:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: Hi guys. Once again, I have edited the article according to your suggestions, Malleus. Always a pleasure to see the mistakes you can dig out, since I have trouble critiquing my own writing. As for your questions, Andonico, I will try my best to address these above and more of them as they pour in. Zhang is his surname; in China (and some other cultures) the family name is given prominence over the individual's name. I just fixed the sentence about retirement and added a mentioning of him being labeled a polymath by some.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments resolved --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I know that you're slowly coming to hate me, but I have a few more:
  • "When the official Dan Song proposed the Chinese calendar should be reformed ...". As contrasted with the unofficial Dan Song? Perhaps better to leave "official out"?
  • "Zhang's contemporary Du Shi (d. AD 38) was the first to apply the motive power of waterwheels to a mechanical device, operating the bellows of a blast furnace to smelt cast iron." Blast furnaces don't produce cast iron, they produce pig iron.
  • "There were other early theories about earthquakes, developed by those such as the ancient Greeks. Anaxagoras (c. 500–428 BC) believed that they were caused by excess water near the surface crust of the earth bursting into the Earth's hollows; Democritus (c. 460–370 BC) believed that the saturation of the Earth with water caused them; Anaximenes (c. 585–c. 525 BC) believed they were the result of massive pieces of the Earth falling into the cavernous hollows due to drying; and Aristotle (384–322 BC) believed they were caused by instability of vapor (pneuma) caused by the drying of the moist Earth by the Sun's rays." Very interesting. But has this got to do with Zhang Heng?

If these few points and any outstanding from my earlier comments are fixed, I'm about ready to support. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response:
    • No, no, no! (Laughs) You're misinterpreting what "official" means here. In this sense, it means "government official," not "official" as in valid or proven. Should I tack on "government" before "official" to avoid any possible confusion there that other readers might encounter?
      • I know what you meant, I was just employing a comedic effect to make my point. "Government official" is pretty vague. It's obviuously your call, but I'd either say "When Dan Song proposed ..." or, if you know what official position Dan Song held, something like "When the Court Astronomer, Dan Song, proposed ...".
I know it's vague, but there is no article on Dan Song and I have no idea what position he held; I can't just start talking about Dan Song without introducing him first. Otherwise people are just going to ask "Who the hell is Dan Song?"
    • Oops! You're right about the blast furnace. But the Chinese had the cupola furnace which used that pig iron to make cast iron; although the final product was cast iron, Du Shi used the waterwheels (as far as I know) to power the bellows of the blast furnace, not the cupola, although he could have simply applied it to both types of furnaces. As written in the ancient Hou Han Shu passsage about him, he used the power of rushing water to smelt and cast iron; the bloomery process was never used in China (or we simply have never discovered its use) and Donald B. Wagner writes that most, if not all, iron smelted in the blast furnace was remelted in the cupola furnace to make cast iron. Should I mention that in the article?
      • Well, as we know that blast furnaces produce pig iron, not cast iron, why not just change "cast" to "pig"?
I fixed the sentence already. And no, the passage states that he simply used rushing water to smelt and cast iron, not if the blast furnace was exclusively used in this process and not the cupola. Wagner writes that the Chinese always used the blast furnace in conjunction with the cupola furnace. Hence the mentioning of both now.
    • As for the Greek theories, I was simply providing a contemporary contrast to the Chinese theory about yin and yang, as well as Zhang's theory about wind, just to give context about the time period and how Zhang's theory sat with other ancient peoples' thoughts about earthquakes.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I understand that, but it seems to be losing a bit of focus by drifting off into a general discussion about ancient theories of earthquakes.
You make a good point, and I anticipated such a point by reducing the explanation about the Greeks to one (albeit long) sentence.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm going to support now. It's in many ways a lovely and informative article, and I just couldn't bring myself to oppose it without putting up a fight. Let's hope that enough others agree. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:29, 27 June 2008 [24].

Mary Shelley[edit]

Nominator(s): Awadewit (talk); qp10qp (talk)


Co-nomination We are happy to nominate this article on an important Romantic writer, whom most will know as the author of Frankenstein. As we researched and wrote this article, we were delighted to learn about all of Mary Shelley's other works and we hope the reviewers will enjoy reading about them as well. Mary Shelley's life is the stuff of melodrama, but we have attempted to write that story in a subdued tone and to keep the wild speculation that often creeps into the story of the Shelleys at bay. This article has been peer-reviewed by several excellent Wikipedians. We thank them for their considerable efforts. Awadewit (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC) qp10qp (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current ref 174 the ODNB ref, you say "retrieved on" but there is no link to the article.
Otherwise sources look okay, links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we didn't link to the ODNB because it was a subscription source available to so few people - are we linking there now? Awadewit (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do, with a note that it's subscription required. I guess folks in the UK get access to it through their library cards. It's also a printed work, so you can format it like I do at Hubert Walter, giving it as a book with a convience link to the online version. If you don't want to link to it, you should probably remove the "retrieved on" date though, that was the point of my comment. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those lucky Brits! I had no idea! Linked. Awadewit (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • For the WikiSource link in the first image's caption, use [[wikisource:article|article]] notation instead of the external link notation, because the external link icon will then disappear. I believe this is preferred because Wikimedia project links are considered more "safe", just like linking internally to other Wikipedia articles.
  • For "Selected list of works" section, perhaps use {{main}} instead of the intro text that is there now.

Gary King (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I participated in the article's peer review, and found the article to be interesting, well-referenced, and engagingly written. It certainly appears to meet all the FA criteria. Markus Poessel (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments This looks pretty good so far. I'm not done reading it yet, but you clearly know what you're doing. I do have a few questions:

*"The Shelleys left Britain in 1818 for Italy, where their second and third children died before Mary Shelley gave birth to her last, and only surviving child, Percy Florence."
Should there be a comma after "surviving"? I'm not sure myself.
Rather than over-comma the sentence, I have removed one, leaving: "... before Mary Shelley gave birth to her last and only surviving child, Percy Florence." qp10qp (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that works!
  • "A year after Wollstonecraft's death, Godwin published what he felt were sincere and compassionate Memoirs (1798) of her."
Is it correct to capitalize and italicize "Memoirs" in this context? That struck me as a little strange.
This sentence has been knocked about a bit. I see your point and have changed the sentence to: "A year after Wollstonecraft's death, Godwin published his Memoirs of the Author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1798), which he intended as a sincere and compassionate tribute. qp10qp (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me.
  • "He often took the children on educational outings, and they had access to his library and to the many intellectuals who visited him, including the Romantic poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge and the former vice-president of the United States, Aaron Burr."
I don't think there should be a comma before "Aaron Burr", since he wasn't the only US vice-president.
Done. qp10qp (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK!
  • "Scholars have speculated that she may have been sent away for her health, to remove her from the seamy side of business, or to introduce her to radical politics."
I'm curious as to why she'd be sent away for her "health". Do you have any more information about that?
The documentation is vague. She had spent some time at Ramsgate, where her father hoped the sea air would help with "a weakness" in her arm. He mentioned the arm when he sent her to Scotland: "You are aware [he wrote to Baxter] that she comes to the seaside for the purpose of bathing. I should wish that you would inquire now and again into the regularity of that. She will also want some treatment for her arm, but she has Mr. Cline's directions completely in all these points, and will probably not require a professional man to look after her while she is with you. In all other respects except her arm she has excellent health ...." But it is not clear that she was sent to Scotland because of her arm and the need to sea-bathe for health reasons. If we said that she might have been sent because of a weakness in her arm, that could sound a little odd, so "health" was the word used. Muriel Spark seems to think the arm was merely Mary's excuse to get away from her stepmother, but, to lapse into wild original research here, I suspect that the trouble was connected with the brain problem that eventually killed her. Headaches and bouts of paralysis on one side were to trouble her from at least fifteen years before she died. qp10qp (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. Thanks for the info. I guess "health" will do, unless someone has a better idea. Zagalejo^^^ 03:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*"'It was acting in a novel, being an incarnate romance', Mary Shelley recalled in 1826."
Should that last comma be inside the quotation marks? I don't usually use "logical punctuation" outside of Wikipedia, so I'm not sure, but that punctuation seems wrong to me. Zagalejo^^^ 23:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. qp10qp (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 03:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mary Shelley's last full-length book was Rambles in Germany and Italy in 1840, 1842 and 1843, written in the form of letters and published in 1844, which recorded her travels with her son Percy Florence and his university friends."
The "which.." clause comes at an awkward point in the sentence. Could this be reorganized at all?
Changed to "Mary Shelley's last full-length book, written in the form of letters and published in 1844, was Rambles in Germany and Italy in 1840, 1842 and 1843, which recorded her travels with her son Percy Florence and his university friends." Awadewit (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Zagalejo^^^ 20:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As Mary Favret writes, 'the disembodied Percy identifies the spirit of poetry itself'.
How about: "As Mary Favret writes, '[T]he disembodied Percy identifies the spirit of poetry itself.'"
I'm not sure the change is necessary. Awadewit (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd only use that form when quoting literary, documentary, or seminal texts. qp10qp (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning is that the quoted portion works as an independent clause. Thus, it should begin with a capital letter, and the punctuation should come within the quotation marks. Zagalejo^^^ 18:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the brackets around the "T" may not be necessary, but the "T" should still be capitalized. At least, according to Turabian: "If the quotation is set off syntactially from the text by a comma, period, or colon, the first word is capitalized, even though it is lowrcase in the original." (5.26, sixth edition). Zagalejo^^^ 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence in the original source is: "For a Victorian reader, the disembodied Percy identifies the spirit of poetry itself, and poetry becomes 'a phantom-world, a place of ignes fatui and spectral illusions'." Our sentence is of a type which usage guides will never agree on. The full stop is outside the closing quotation marks because the quotation, though (in your words) it "works as" an independent clause, is not a full sentence in the original source. Burchfield's edition of Fowler (1998) says: "If an extract ends with a point ... let that point be included before the closing quotation mark; but not otherwise." I concede that Turabian and Chicago say different, but both acknowledge variation. On the capital letter, Chicago says that you "may" change it. Turabian (p 352) also allows flexibility: "Whenever you quote, you must record the exact wording, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation of the source, even if they do not follow the quidelines in this manual. When you incorporate the quotation, however, you may modify it to fit the syntax of the surrounding text ...." So, though I understand the principle you are advocating, I'd rather retain the present style, which doesn't give the impression that the quotation begins with a capital letter or ends with a full stop. qp10qp (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Qp here - I think the changes may mislead the reader regarding the original quotation and since they are purely stylistic changes, I don't think we should risk that confusion. Awadewit (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think about it, MLA style also requires that the period be outside the quotation marks in certain situations, so I guess that sentence isn't as strange as I thought it was. Wikipedia's own MOS is sort of vague about what to do here, but this isn't something that should prevent the article from being promoted, so I'll just let it go. If it it turns out that the punctuation and capitalization have to be changed, then that could be done with minimal effort. Zagalejo^^^ 20:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A general point: I like how the article emphasizes Shelley's non-Frankenstein works, but at the same time, I think the article fails to stress just how popular the Frankenstein story is outside of academia. All I see is a brief bit in the lead about "theatrical and film adaptions". I'm sure you don't want a big list of cultural references, but I'd still like to see something more about Frankenstein's role in popular culture. (If nothing else, a brief mention of the James Whale film would be nice.) Zagalejo^^^ 05:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qp - what are your thoughts here? Perhaps we could add another sentence or two, but I am loathe to add much more as this isn't the Frankenstein article and Mary Shelley wasn't involved with any of these adaptations. Awadewit (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly a sentence or two at the beginning of the last paragraph. Maybe start the paragraph with "in the twentieth century ...". We could justify this, since the Cambridge Companion has an essay on it (shocking to see screenshots in a CC!). qp10qp (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a first stab at the sentence. I'm not sure I like it, though. Perhaps you could take a second stab at it? Awadewit (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked it. Seems to do the job and fit in well there. qp10qp (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something like that is sufficient. I'm not sure if I really like it at the beginning of that paragraph, but I can't think of a better place to put it. Zagalejo^^^ 18:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A very convincing article for the general reader. Here are my observations which may be ignored without harm:
    • It is long, but I don't think that's a problem. The article is structured in a way that allows those readers interested in "what and how she wrote" to skip to the appropriate section, if they wish, and the same with those readers interested in how her life fit into the tangled web of well-known individuals around her. If I had to pick one weak paragraph: I don't understand what the paragraph beginning "In 1827, Mary Shelley was party to a scheme..." adds. It seems like a paragraph perhaps resulting more from the writers' interest in the subject than fulfilling any biographically important role.
      • We've had problems with this paragraph - Qp what should we do with this material? Awadewit (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it doesn't seem to fit, but nor did it seem to fit in her life. The matter is given great attention by recent writers, particularly by Betty Bennett—Miranda Seymour has several pages on it. In some ways, the incident is significant beyond Mary Shelley (I think Dods should even be a red link), because you don't hear about this sort of thing very often. One reads hints that Mary Shelley may have been bisexual or a lesbian herself, but not strong enough ones to justify emphasizing this in an encyclopedic article, in my opinion (if we started going into all the speculation out there about the Shelleys' love lives, we'd never be able to stop). Both Seymour and Spark talk of her closeness with Jane Williams, and there is a theory that Jane Shelley was in love with Mary Shelley (what a great ruse that would have been, to marry the son of the woman you loved!). This is all very marginal, but I think we'd be making a mistake to cut Mary's involvement in the Dods affair out altogether, because it is a nugget of fact, however carbuncular. qp10qp (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's also one interpretation of Mary Shelley's life that emphasizes the help she gave individual women as evidence of her interest in women's issues and her radicalism. This story is important for that particular interpretation because she helped women who were challenging society's norms. Another reason to keep it. I just wish we could find a way to contextualize the whole incident better. Awadewit (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was sometimes put off by the use of formal names when a simple "father" would have sufficed (or so I think). A distancing effect is created, intentionally or not I don't know, among the characters when this occurs, such that I felt the article to be subtly suggesting, for example, that William Godwin was something less than a "father" to Shelley. Of course, any one example is unimportant in itself, but here are three:
      • "In June 1812, William Godwin sent Mary to stay with the Dissenting family..." In just about any register, wouldn't you say, "Mary's father sent her to stay..."?
      • "...to Mary's genuine surprise, William Godwin refused to have anything to do with her..."; reading this sentence with no context, you'd never imagine a father/daughter relationship existed.
      • "...Mary Shelley enjoyed the stimulating society of William Godwin's circle..."
        • I left this one as the circle would have been associated with Godwin the intellectual, not Godwin the father. I looked through the other instances of Godwin and changed another one as well. Awadewit (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Literary themes and styles" section is excellent and dare I say it, tells us why to care about the figure. Good job. I've been told it's very hard to avoid quoting critics literally in literary criticism sections, but as always, the less the better I'm sure. ;)
  • Thank you, Isolation booth (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. EXCELLENT article. I was drawn in from the first paragraph and didn't even realize I was reading a fairly long article until I was done. Thank you for bringing a fascinating woman and gifted writer to life. Two minor comments:
    • "Mary Shelley was known mainly for her efforts to publish Percy Shelley's works and her novel Frankenstein" - makes it sound as if she was known for trying to publisher her novel rather than for the novel. Perhaps just changing to "and for her novel" would do the trick?
    • Is eloped the proper word to use, since they would be unable to get married?
      • Believe it or not, we actually discussed this. I quote Qp from the article talk page: "That's struck me, too. But the books I read seemed to use this word. I've just checked the dictionaries, and some do allow a looser use of the word to mean "run away with one's lover". Apparently, the derivation is from "aloper", to run away! qp10qp (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)" Awadewit (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wonder if it would be worth adding a note (or an HTMl comment). On the one hand, the article makes it clear he's still married, but on the other random readers might start trying to change the text for you.Karanacs (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think we're wedded to the word (as it were), so I've therefore replaced both occurrences. qp10qp (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As anticipated, an excellent article. My concerns below are not significant enough for me to withhold support.

  • There is one sentence early on that bugs me. "Yet, Mary Godwin read these memoirs and her mother's books, and she was raised to cherish her mother's memory." - The yet seems very formal, and I don't reacall seeing that useage of the word yet at the start of a sentence elsewhere. To my mind this makes the prose a little stilted - I had to read it over a couple of times to work out exactly what was meant. The sentence also has some redundancy - the word "she" is not necessary.
Changed to: "Mary Godwin read these memoirs and her mother's books, and was raised to cherish her mother's memory." (sob) qp10qp (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second and third paragraphs use the word "however" quite a lot. Consider trimming some or finding alternative words in their place. Keep an eye on this throughout
Great call. Have thinned them out. qp10qp (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not really a complaint, but an article as well written as this often makes me want to click on links to learn more. Are elusive characters like Timothy Shelley, Daniel Roberts, Jane Williams, Maria Mary Dods or Thomas Medwin notable enough for their own articles?
I think so. I predict that within a year they will have them. As an interim measure, I have redlinked Dods and Williams, who seem the worthiest. qp10qp (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "largely responsible for the recovery of Shelley as a writer." - Recovery from what? Unless this is a specific literary term or I have missed something earlier, there is no indiciation thus far that her writing needed recovering. (I see this is discussed in the later "reputation" section, but the sentence should be more fully explained)
It's true that this is not precisely prefigured (though it is strongly implied) in the lead. What do you think, Awadewit? qp10qp (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Recovery" is a literary term, often used in the context of "recovery projects" that scholars perform to "recover" the now-lost-to-view works of a writer. Mary Shelley's works needed to be recovered because no one was reading them (except for Frankenstein) - they were lost in obscurity. We try to hint at this in the lead: Until the 1970s, Mary Shelley was known mainly for her efforts to publish Percy Shelley's works and for her novel Frankenstein, which remains widely read and has inspired many theatrical and film adaptations. Recent scholarship has yielded a more comprehensive view of Mary Shelley’s achievement. - Should we make this more explicit? Awadewit (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it to "recovery from neglect". qp10qp (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has been adequately addressed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, the first two sentences of that paragraph pretty much say the same thing. The only major difference is the second mentions psychoanalytic critics. Maybe you can just remove the second sentence, and rework the first to include something about psychoanalytic critcism. Zagalejo^^^ 03:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all, one of the best articles Wikipedia posesses and a massive credit to its authors.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. qp10qp (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! We are glad you enjoyed it. Awadewit (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this paragraph just seems to be awkwardly written: Mary Godwin's mother died after giving birth to her, and she was brought up, along with her older half-sister Fanny Imlay, by her father. When Mary was three, Godwin married his neighbour, Mary Jane Clairmont. Godwin provided his daughter with a rich, if informal, education, encouraging her to adhere to his liberal political theories. In 1814, Mary Godwin fell in love with one of her father’s political followers, the married Percy Bysshe Shelley, and the lovers left for France, along with Mary's stepsister, Claire Clairmont. The three travelled through Europe, and when they returned to England Mary Godwin was pregnant. Over the next two years, she and Percy faced ostracism, constant debt, and the death of their prematurely born daughter. They married in late 1816 after the suicide of Percy Shelley's first wife.

suggested rewrite : After Mary Godwin's mother died giving birth to her, she and her older half-sister, Fanny Imlay, were raised by her father. Mr. Godwin married again when Mary was three, taking for a wife his neighbor, Mary Jane Clairmont. Godwin provided his daughter with a rich, if informal, education and encouraged her to adhere to his liberal political theories. As a young woman, Mary Godwin fell in love with a married man, one of her father's political followers, Percy Bysshe Shelley. Together with Mary's stepsister, Claire Clairmont, they left for France and travelled through Europe; upon their return to England, Mary was pregant. Over the next two years, she and Percy faced ostracism, constant debt, and the death of their prematurely born daughter. They married in late 1816 after the suicide of Percy Shelley's first wife.

I dont intend to vote on this FAC, I was just browsing through the FAC nominations after it was suggested that I participate more in the FAC process. I started to read your article and I thought I might try to help with prose. Take it or leave it, my suggestion should not hold up your FAC. I am just trying to be helpful. NancyHeise (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your help, Nancy! I agree that the paragraph doesn't flow as well as it could. We are trying to introduce everyone here and their relationships to each other. It is all very awkward. I have incorporated some of your suggested changes. Awadewit (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I did a line by line review of this over Skype with Awadewit, and found only minor prose issues, which were promptly fixed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I remember reading this article a year or so ago and being so disappointed; among numerous issues and gaps, the biography basically ended after Bysshe Shelley's death and nearly thirty years of her life was unaccounted for. I'm so glad to see this collaboration was successful in illuminating the very interesting life of this inspirational woman. I had a difficult time reading it with a critical eye, so I can't say I have any suggestions for improvement. Brilliant work, really. María (habla conmigo) 15:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — I see absolutely no reason to oppose this article's FAC. Quality writing and sources. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support It's rare to find a tour de force of scholarship that's as pleasant to read as it is enlightening. The superbness of article reflects the constant devotion and meticulous attention of its chief authors. :) Willow (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (FWIW), there is an external jump in the lead image caption. External jumps (even to Wiki sisters) belong in External links or citations. I see someone else asked for this, but it doesn't agree with WP:LAYOUT; I would incorporate that external link into the ref tags. Also note the long thread at WT:FAC about reflist being broken; recommend lowering it to reflist|2, but that isn't required. I've never encountered ref group, and can't find documentation on it; is it possible for notes to use a, b, c ... so they aren't confused with refs 1, 2, 3 ... ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is an external jump? I just thought it was nice to link to the actual text of the poem cited in the caption. It is not necessary for the citation.
  • I changed the reflist to 2 columns.
  • I just copied the refgroup style from another article. I don't know how to change it - I'm sorry. At least in the article, it says "note 1" and "1". Can anyone else help out with this? Awadewit (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An external jump is a link that takes the reader out of en.wiki :-) Technically (WP:El and WP:LAYOUT), we shouldn't do it, but I'm not going to hold up the nom over it. I'm also not going to hold up over the Notes a vs. 1 thing, but I do wish I could figure out where to find the documentation, because it would be nice to be able to change the 1, 2, 3 to a, b, c. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed link. I'll try to find someone to work on the notes. Awadewit (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I haven't had time to read the entire article yet, but everything I've read so far is impeccably written and cited. I do have one question though: Is it a good idea for us to be using the experimental grouped references feature in a potential featured article? I see two potential problems with this: 1. The syntax and functionality might change at some point, breaking the article; 2. The use of this feature on such a high profile article will surely lead to it spreading widely across Wikipedia. Are we ready for that to happen? Kaldari (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The group references feature is already used in the action potential article (which is also featured). I'm hoping that WillowW will be able to help me out with it, since she worked with it there. Second, I think it is a great idea. Separating the substantive notes from the 250-odd citations is very helpful for the reader. Awadewit (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do others edit it? (I couldn't figure it out.) I'm not sure anyone noticed at action potential (I didn't). Another system, which works, it at Gettysburg Address. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's very simple to use. If I can figure it out (make your new ref match the old refs), anyone can. Anyway, let's see what we can dig up before changing the whole system. Awadewit (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it is best to forge ahead rather than be timid and wait for cogs to turn slowly. If this method catches on, it will be a good thing, surely; and it will supersede the method used in, say, William Shakespeare, which looks much the same to the reader but which does not fall into order of its own accord (in other words, if someone cuts a note ref, all the succeeding ones have to be adjusted manually, which is appallingly laborious and demands alert watchlisting). If the method is thought useful, I am sure that ways will be found to make it resilient to breakage. qp10qp (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on our experience over the past few months, the code is robust; I've written some documentation here to explain its various uses. It's extremely unlikely that Steve, a professional programmer, would change the syntax to make it backward-incompatible. I believe that he plans to extend his method, e.g., to allow references within references, but that shouldn't affect its present functioning.
If letters are required instead of the "note" prefix, we could work to implement a simpler solution on the English Wikipedia, but it's not clear to me how fast that could be done. Being based on the existing ref system, and dedicated to a single purpose (explanatory footnotes), the second system would be very unlikely to break or change. Willow (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Superior, as usual. I read it all, though, wary that Awadewit's and Qp10qp's reputations precede them. God forbid anyone think on their 58th FAC they can slack off. But I found it extraordinarily comprehensive and well-written, and accessible for those who are unfamiliar with 19th century literature. Very interesting. --Moni3 (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:29, 27 June 2008 [25].

First-move advantage in chess[edit]

Nominator(s): SyG (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has already undergone a A-class review (within the WP:WikiProject Chess) and a GA-class review, both with success. The main editor, User:Krakatoa, and myself believe it meets the FA-criteria. SyG (talk) 06:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Half way through reading this, but three things;

  • Can ye provide cites for the quotes in the image captions.
  • Sections of "Drawn with best play" are over reliant on quotes; can some of these be paraphrased into prose.
Done I have removed most of the quotes, paraphrasing instead. SyG (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chesscafe.com link is dead.

So far it looks like a very strong and accessible article. Ceoil sláinte 12:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the ChessCafe.com article is working for me, so I'm afraid I can't agree that it is dead. Also, the quotes in the image captions appear in full in the text as well - with the former it is admittedly quite a bit further down the page, but with the latter it is just to the right of it Perhaps the citation should be included again, though as I'm hopeless with formatting references I'll leave that to someone else to do if they wishCaissa's DeathAngel (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strange; the link checker tool told me it was dead. Anyway, I don't think repeating quotes in both the article and img. captions is a good idea. A summary of their positions in the captions would be best. Ceoil sláinte 16:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I've changed both. I wasn't totally sure what to put in place of the quote, so please could you let me know if that's ok? I can change it again if need be of course. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see you left in the Malaniuk caption - its very witty, good move. I read the full article since, and after the issued raised by Ealdgyth are resolved I'll support. This was a very enjoyable and interesting article to read. Ceoil sláinte 16:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed that actually! I'm not one of the primary editors of the article to be honest so overlooked that one. If you or any other reviewer thinks I should change that too I will, though the other two were more significant. Currently working on sorting out the reliability thing. Most of the references are unfortunately print, so it's proving harder than I instinctively know it should be.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem with writing about obscure areas, it's hard to find other folks that know the sources well enough to know that they are reliable. Don't feel you have to rush, the FAC won't fail in the next day or two because you haven't immediately rushed to answer my queries (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, I'd rather fix the problems sooner rather than later - being a WikiSloth I'll soon lose interest if I don't *grins*. All the publisher omissions should now be fixed, just need to justify the remaining two sites as reliable. Also, it seems Ceoil you were right about the dead link, I've removed it. Two other references make the same point so I don't consider the loss of one as particularly significant.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it me, or does the page take a very long time to download. Looking at dr pada's script the total article size is 338kb, while text is only 35kb. ie the images must be huge. Ceoil sláinte 19:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just you, alas. Having edited the article over 800 times, I'm all too familiar with how long it takes to load. Krakatoa (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, poor "First-move advantage in chess", I knew his download times only too well! Can ye get someone with an image editor to scale them down, please. Ceoil sláinte 20:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Understand that I am not a chess player, so I don't know the sites at all, but what makes the following reliable sources?
Done Based on your "16:20, 21 June 2008" reply to Caissa's DeathAngel below, I understand it is fine for you now. Please correct me if otherwise. SyG (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Publisher addedCaissa's DeathAngel (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Based on your "16:20, 21 June 2008" reply to Caissa's DeathAngel below, I understand it is fine for you now. Please correct me if otherwise. SyG (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Based on your "23:06, 21 June 2008" reply to me below after I have provided a few elements, I understand you are now neutral and let it to other reviewers to decide on this. Please correct me if otherwise. SyG (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Fixed, dead link removed Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current refs 14, 15 and 16 are lacking publishers (CEGT ratings)
Done Not too sure on the formatting, but I've tried to add the publisher anyway
  • Current ref 132 (Hurd Chess Endgame Data Assurance) is lacking a publisher
Done Added publisher - can you please confirm though that it's ok to put Cambrige University as the publisher? That's certain who is hosting the article, and for whom the author works.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for Current ref 134 Bremermann Quantum Noise and Information
Done Publisher found, added
Otherwise sources look okay, links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the links: ChessCafe.com is regularly contributed to by the world's leading players, and is notable enough to have an article on here. It is reliable. ChessGames.com is also well contributed to by some of the greatest in the world, including former world champions, and is regarded as basically the foremost resource for chess games online. They are well and truly notable, well known to chess fans, and considered significant enough for their own article here (I realise that last part doesn't count for a lot).Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who is adding graphics. Please see the WP:FAC instructions, and please sign your entries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to show and demonstrate their reliablity is to have third-party mentions of them as reliable or useful. Usually this is something like a "Best of the web" from some noted journal in the field, or the use of the site as a source in printed media dealing with the subject. (I'd like to repeat that I'm not thinking they aren't reliable, I'm just not seeing the instant reliablity either) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...ChessBase actually publishes its own journal - Chess Informator, but I shall need to find references for that that aren't in print. Chess Cafe was referenced by the US Chess Association in the following locations here: [26], [27], [28] - with the latter, it is noted that ChessCafe sponsors a US Chess Association tournament, although these may be more points towards Chess Cafe's notability than reliability admittedly. Not got the time to hunt down more sources, or for ChessGames.com, though I don't doubt they do exist. As a chess player, there's no question whatsoever for me of the reliability - especially as the very best in the world contributeCaissa's DeathAngel (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Wait, found a couple more links, though again not sure as to how much good they are. The Guardian links both Chess Base and Chess Cafe as useful links in its chess section here: [29] and Chess Base references Chess Cafe and its interview with arguably the most famous chess player alive, Garry Kasparov (also current leader of the Russian political opposition) here: [30]Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm convinced personally, but I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide on their own about those two sites. The others though, anything on them? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand, the only other left is www.chessgames.com. Here are some hints of his notability:
  • This website is used in about all chess-related articles managed by the WP:WikiProject Chess, as this is the only one that is notable, reliable and "linkable".
  • It is used extensively in the articles Chess and The Turk, that are both featured articles.
  • An interview of the site manager by the online magazine "Chess Today". The interviewer introduces the site as "one of the most impressive and unusual chess web projects around".
  • A rating of various chess websites. Note that www.chessgames.com is one of the very few to get a "A" rating.
Please tell me if that makes it. I think the difficulty of finding mainstream coverage of this website comes from the fact that mainstream media 1)don't cover chess; 2)when they do cover chess, it's about chess news and they cite ChessBase; 3)when they do cover chess and not chess news, it's about "where to play chess on the internet" and they cite PlayChess. No mainstream media is gonna take an interest into chess history, which is what www.chessgames.com is all about. SyG (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced, myself, but given the nature of the subject, I'm going to leave this out for other reviewers to see and make their own decisions. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use en dashes for page ranges in the references per WP:DASH.
Done. --Kakofonous (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is underwhelmingly short, considering the length of the article. There must be some more information that could be summarized?
Done (?) I have greatly extended the Lead, please have a look and see if it is better. SyG (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since at least 1889, when Wilhelm Steinitz, the first World Champion, addressed the issue, the overwhelming consensus has been that a game of chess should end in a draw with best play." – This sentence has a lot of commas and therefore the reader has to stop a lot to read it; perhaps it can be reworded or broken up into two sentences?
Done Fixed it by just referring to Steinitz as a world champion, and rephrasing it accordingly. I don't think it's too relevant that he was the first of his kind.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the section title "Black is OK!" have quotations around it if it is a phrase?
Done Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fear, as Black is indeed OK, but" – Perhaps it might be better to use italics here instead of bold, as bold is strongly discouraged per MOS:BOLD when formatting text as it has a much higher chance of bringing attention to it, which draws readers' eyes away when reading text around it.
Done Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading the chess notation gave me a minor headache; also, it appears that some is bold and some is not. I guess there's a reason for this?
It's done for stylistic reasons. Text in bold actually happened during the game, notation that isn't is additional commentary/analysis. There's no way of getting around the use of notation in pages like this, and the boldness is used to give the reader a very clear and instant picture if they only care about the actual moves in the game.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know that having the chess notation on the page is necessary; I'm just saying that I'm not used to reading it. Gary King (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a difficult one to tackle. Do you think there is something that could be done to improve the readability of the article in this respect ? For example, do you think that if we came back to the line more often (e.g. at the end of each sequence of bold moves, just before the commentary), it would improve ? SyG (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give me an example here? I'm thinking at least perhaps colons could be used at places like "2004[44][45] 1.e4" → "2004[44][45]: 1.e4" to separate the two. Just think how the page would look if formatting such as bold was removed, and references were also removed (which is how Wikipedia articles sometimes appear in other forms of media), then you have to think if the page is still readable. A colon or a similar separator would certainly help. Gary King (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented your suggestion to add a colon before the moves.
About my idea, for the moment we have the moves and the explanations interlaced like that:
Lev Polugaevsky-Ľubomír Ftáčnik, Lucerne Olympiad 1982: 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nc3 e6 4.g3 b6 5.Bg2 Bb7 6.O-O Be7 7.d4 cxd4 8.Qxd4 d6 9.Rd1 a6 10.b3 Nbd7 11.e4 Qb8 12.Bb2 O-O Suba wrote of a similar Hedgehog position, "White's position looks ideal. That's the naked truth about it, but the 'ideal' has by definition one drawback—it cannot be improved." 13.Nd2 Rd8 14.a4 Qc7 15.Qe3 Rac8 16.Qe2 Ne5 17.h3? According to Ftáčnik, 17.f4 Neg4 18.Rf1 is better. 17...h5! 18.f4 Ng6 19.Nf3 Now Black breaks open the position in typical Hedgehog fashion. 19...d5! 20.cxd5?! Ftáčnik considers 20.e5 or 20.exd5 preferable. 20...h4! 21.Nxh4 Nxh4 22.gxh4 Qxf4 23.dxe6 fxe6 24.e5? Ftáčnik recommends instead 24.Rxd8 Rxd8 25.Rd1. 24...Bc5+ 25.Kh1 Nh5! 26.Qxh5 Qg3 27.Nd5 Other moves get mated immediately: 27.Bxb7 Qh3#; 27.Qe2 Qxh3#; 27.Qg4 Bxg2#. 27...Rxd5 28.Rf1 Qxg2+! 29.Kxg2 Rd2+ If 30.Kg3 (the only legal response to the double check), Rg2+ 31.Kf4 Rf8+ forces mate.
My idea would be to get back to the line before each comment, in order to clearly separate the moves and the explanations, like that:
Lev Polugaevsky-Ľubomír Ftáčnik, Lucerne Olympiad 1982:
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nc3 e6 4.g3 b6 5.Bg2 Bb7 6.O-O Be7 7.d4 cxd4 8.Qxd4 d6 9.Rd1 a6 10.b3 Nbd7 11.e4 Qb8 12.Bb2 O-O
Suba wrote of a similar Hedgehog position, "White's position looks ideal. That's the naked truth about it, but the 'ideal' has by definition one drawback—it cannot be improved."
13.Nd2 Rd8 14.a4 Qc7 15.Qe3 Rac8 16.Qe2 Ne5 17.h3?
According to Ftáčnik, 17.f4 Neg4 18.Rf1 is better.
17...h5! 18.f4 Ng6 19.Nf3
Now Black breaks open the position in typical Hedgehog fashion.
19...d5! 20.cxd5?!
Ftáčnik considers 20.e5 or 20.exd5 preferable.
20...h4! 21.Nxh4 Nxh4 22.gxh4 Qxf4 23.dxe6 fxe6 24.e5?
Ftáčnik recommends instead 24.Rxd8 Rxd8 25.Rd1.
24...Bc5+ 25.Kh1 Nh5! 26.Qxh5 Qg3 27.Nd5
Other moves get mated immediately: 27.Bxb7 Qh3#; 27.Qe2 Qxh3#; 27.Qg4 Bxg2#.
27...Rxd5 28.Rf1 Qxg2+! 29.Kxg2 Rd2+
If 30.Kg3 (the only legal response to the double check), 30...Rg2+ 31.Kf4 Rf8+ forces mate.
Unfortunately that may leave a lot of white space on the article. What do you like best ? SyG (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter to me too much, especially since I don't think the general audience who reads this article will be gorging on the chess moves too much. I don't think they need to be broken up on every line. Gary King (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Support Most of the issues are now resolved I think - the GA review took care of a lot of them, and I've sorted most of what the reviewers thus far have brought up. I think it's ready for FA Class.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Support - a great job has been done with balancing the technical and accessible with the prose. A pleasure to read. Couple of minor things but no deal-breakers.

In Symmetrical openings, I am not sure that the 'second' etc. ordinal qualifiers are needed for their respective paragraphs. If you tack on para 4 to para 3. Not a biggie and if you find it obfuscates things unduly don't proceed. yep. I feel it reads fine.

Otherwise great read. well done. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I have reworded the paragraphs you mention to avoid the ordinal qualifiers. See if you like it. SyG (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments - This reviewer, whose chess experience is limited to ESPN broadcasts of Garry Kasparov playing computers, thinks this is a fascinating article. Here are some nit-picks with it.

  • Winning percentages: There are a lot of inconsistencies regarding whether percentage marks have a space before them or not. Audit for this throughout.
Done I think I have succeeded in deleting all spaces preceding percentage signs. Krakatoa (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Data compiled by GM András Adorján, which analyzed" Incorrect grammar; should be "who".
Done I revised this sentence to make it more accurate. Krakatoa (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drawn with best play: Adorján doesn't need another link here.
Done Deleted this link. Krakatoa (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • White to play and win, Win with 1.e4: This sentence needs work; "Rauzer and Adams thus turned on its head leading hypermodern Gyula's famous statement".
Done I have reworded the sentence. SyG (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately is POV.
Not sure I understand your problem here. I don't think it's POV, since the article doesn't say that Rauzer and Adams, or Gyula Breyer, was right. It just says that Breyer said that White had a losing game after 1.e4, while Rauzer and Adams said the opposite: that White is winning by force after that move. Krakatoa (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Anyway, I have deleted the whole sentence, as it does not seem to add anything relevant to the article. SyG (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modern perspective, "Black is O.K.!": A third Adorján link.
Done Deleted this link. Krakatoa (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Black's advantages, Symmetrical openings: "GM Andrew Soltis recently wrote" This should give a time period, because it will become outdated otherwise.
Done Replaced "recently wrote" with "wrote in 2008." Thanks for your comments, and glad that you like the article! Krakatoa (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite impressed with this. Assuming that the source situation is okay, this will gain my support once these problems are addressed. Giants2008 (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, I hope all your concerns above have been addressed. About the issue of the reliability of sources, that was raised by Ealdgyth above and we have been answering his questions. My current understanding is that he now agrees on the reliability of www.chessbase.com and of www.chesscafe.com, and he is now neutral on the reliability of www.chessgames.com as he would like the opinion of other reviewers. I have provided a few elements to assess this reliability, please feel free to forge your own opinion. SyG (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's not easy to get technical articles like this featured, but I think this one is very good. Well done to all of the article's editors. Giants2008 (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your encouragements! SyG (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Prose needs sprucing up a little. The prose is not bad, but needs a careful polish throughout: shouldn't take someone fresh to the article long. Here are random samples indicating that the whole article needs a run-through:

  • "Some World Champions like Fischer or Garry Kasparov, when playing Black, do not strive for equality but instead try to get an advantage by seeking the initiative and creating structural contrasts between each player's placement of pieces." Try this:
  • "World Champions such as Fischer and Garry Kasparov, when playing Black, do not strive for positional equality but instead try to gain advantage by seeking the initiative and creating structural contrasts with their opponent's positions." Unsure whether you meant positional or material equality; does this need to to be specified?
  • "In the last thirty years,"—not wrong, but better as "In the past 30 years,". But why start this para, as well as the previous one, with a time-phrase? "Several established ... over the past 30 years."
  • If the start of a para contains "also", there's something wrong. The second "also" in that para seems unnecessary, even misleading.

Can you locate a double-nerd (words and chess) from relevant, good WP articles? Search edit history pages; edit summaries give the copy-editors away. Good for future collaborations, too. TONY (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately my level of English is not high enough to do some good copyediting myself. I will try to get a volunteer to review the article with fresh eyes and improve the prose. SyG (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a double or triple nerd, I'll give it a go today. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Going to bed, I'll do it first thing in the morning. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Dank55 and Krakatoa have done some copyedit (many thanks to both!), would you think the prose is spruced enough ? SyG (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Question I'm doing a copyedit now; as always, feel free to revert anything I do, but I'd appreciate an explanation in the edit summary. I got stumped on the phrase "winning percentage", which to a patzer like me sounds like how often you win; you're using it to mean the percentage of the time that you win, plus half the percentage of the time that you draw (based on the obvious scoring in chess for a draw, half a point to both sides). This "winning percentage" jargon is not defined in the List of chess terms. I don't mind if you use the phrase, if it's a phrase in common use among chessplayers, but if so, it's non-intuitive, and I'd like to see it defined at the first occurrence of the phrase and also at List of chess terms. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response Footnote 1 in the article defines the concept, I've added an entry to List of chess terms defining winning percentage as you requested, and I link the first use of "winning percentage" to that definition. Is that OK? Krakatoa (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't enforce the "one phrase or clause only before the main clause" that some copyeditors like, but this is just too much: "At the slowest time control (40/120), as of May 4, 2008, out of 17,742 games played among 33 of the strongest chess engines, White had won..." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response You're right; the way I'd written it is very cumbersome. For that sentence and the similar sentences following it (for the 40/20 and 40/4 time controls) I've tried to rewrite them much more tersely, relegating the details (exact number of games played, number of wins/losses/draws) to the references. See what you think. Krakatoa (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Gender neutrality: how about "that the objective is to extend..." instead of "that his objective is to extend"? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response I rewrote the sentence in the following gender-neutral way: "The traditional view is that White, by virtue of the first move, begins with the initiative and should try to extend it into the middlegame, while Black strives to neutralize White's initiative and reach equality." Krakatoa (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although "signally" gets 344K Google hits, and Websters doesn't deprecate it, it's old-fashioned and not well-known. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response - deleted offending word. Krakatoa (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't like the switch from past to present verb tense referring to the same work in First-move_advantage_in_chess#The_System; can someone share what, in general, you'd expect to see in the references in order to justify the switch from one tense to the other? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response No good reason; I've changed it all to past tense. Krakatoa (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see you changed my "Claims that white should win" heading to "White wins". Your way is shorter, which is worth a lot, but WP:MOS, that mother of all evil, recommends nouns and phrases that act as nouns for section headings. Anyone want to vote on this? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response Others are welcome to weigh in, of course. I vote for "White wins" because it (1) expresses the point much more tersely than "Claims that white should win," (2) parallels the previous section title ("Drawn with best play" -- btw, using the same logic of using nouns and phrases that act as nouns for section headings, shouldn't that be changed to the ghastly "Claims that the game is a draw with best play"?), and (3) avoids the problem of having to either (a) put "White" in lower-case, as you've done, which offends the eyes of chessplayers like me or (b) put "White" in upper-case, which looks good to chessplayers (those who think as I do, anyway), but offends another Wikipedia bugaboo (not capitalizing words in section titles other than the first word). WP:MOS ought to be a set of guidelines, not a straitjacket. Krakatoa (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What say you all? Quote: IM Jeremy Silman wrote, "the sheer insanity..." The source starts off with an inoffensive clause before "the sheer insanity", so we can't capitalize the "t". Do we need an ellipsis, or is the lowercase "t" a sufficient clue that the sentence doesn't start there? (I'm fine with it, provided, of course, that what comes before doesn't change the meaning of the rest of the sentence.) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I get the similarity to sports journalism. It would be silly to say, "Michael Jordan expressed an interest in dunking over Charles Barkley, but Charles replied that he thought it unlikely"; you'd want to quote the colorful language they used, because the language is part of the sport. So I decided not to let all the quotations bother me...but at some point, it did seem to be too much. I think it was somewhere around Countervailing advantages that the quotations seemed not to add a lot. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response I like quotes because (at least if they're in context) they're NPOV, while someone's paraphrase of or gloss upon them may not be. But I think you're right that some of those in the article don't add much. I've shortened some of the text in Countervailing advantages and moved a number of quotes into references instead. See what you think. Krakatoa (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Quote: Black should strive for "[e]lastic and non-symmetrical pawn structures." Was it a capital E in the source? Was it in a list, or was that a sentence that continued on past "structures"? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response The quote was, "In order to make a real fight out of chess we must look for:
  • 1. Elastic and non-symmetrical pawn structures.
  • 2. Pressure or control towards the centre. [etc., through points 3, 4, 5, and 6]" Krakatoa (talk) 04:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support, after the above issues are addressed. The one that will take the most work is that there are too many quotations; as I say, I follow that hearing what the grandmasters said themselves is part of the interest of the game, but there are more than a few boring quotes in this article as well that could be rephrased, generally starting around Countervailing advantages. - Dan Dank55 (talk)

(mistakes) 23:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response I've now addressed all your issues as best I can, and hope I've done so sufficiently. See what you think. Thanks for all your valuable and painstaking work on the article! I think it's a lot better now. Krakatoa (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The two comments above that ask for a response from the "jury" didn't get any, so I assume we're good to go. Thanks for rewording some of the quotes, and I considered doing some myself, but you're right. This is one of those subjects where it's hard to say that changing a word in the quotes won't alter the meaning, so let's just leave them. Excellent work; you're a good copyeditor. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment You'll probably need to change the {{reflist}} template to display 2 columns, not 3. Per discovery of a browser bug. -- VegitaU (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Never mind, it's more a Firefox issue than a Wikipedia issue. -- VegitaU (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thanks for the heads-up. I am a technical ignoramus, but I was sure the article was using reflist 2 rather than reflist 3. Upon looking at the notes, I see that someone switched to reflist 3. (Neanderthal that I am, I use IE, under which the notes look the same with either.) I have no idea about the relative merits of reflist 2, reflist 3, and the alternatives, but I see that 19 out of 26 articles (73%) so far in the Featured Article queue for June use reflist 2, so I assume they're on to something. I have accordingly switched the article back to reflist 2. (Of the other articles in the queue, one uses reflist, four use reflist 3, one uses reflist 4, and one uses a custom design.) I hope the switch back to reflist 2 solves your problem. I'm sure more knowledgeable users will enlighten me if reflist 2 is in fact bad for some reason. Krakatoa (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A "custom design"?! Which one would that be? That shouldn't be the case... Gary King (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My reference to "custom design" was probably incorrect. I believe I was referring to the June 9 article, Jurassic Park (film), which apparently uses a variant of reflist with a column width of "30em", whatever that means. Krakatoa (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That means that the number of columns will vary depending on the width of the browser, which I think is better than having a fixed number of columns. Gary King (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Support. This is among the very best chess articles I have ever seen on Wikipedia. The article scores very high marks on information, with a number of high-quality sources. It does an excellent job of binding the different viewpoints of the "Does White have a forced win?" controversy with excellent prose. The addition of full games is unusual in an encyclopedia, but in this case it enhances the points made in the article, and since the best paper chess encyclopedia (Oxford Companion) does the same thing to illustrate its articles, I have no problems with it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to the intro:

  • "World Champion Wilhelm Steinitz" - two links "next to each other in the text" are prohibited by WP:MOSLINK.
    • No, MOSLINK says "An article may be overlinked if any of the following is true..." One of the things I look for in a copyedit is whether the links actually add something to the article; for this article, they do. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I copy edited that sentence, and I really don't think I can improve on the way it's phrased/linked just now. While not ideal, there's no way of improving it without overloading it with commas (the original problem) and I'm not doing that again. Besides, as Dan says both links add something.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many contemporary players, including World Champions Fischer and Garry Kasparov..." - Fischer is dead and Kasparov inactive - why "contemporary"?
    • "contemporary" is fine (it doesn't mean "now"), but the present tense with Fischer and Kasparov doesn't work; fixed. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Modern writers also argue that Black has certain countervailing advantages." Almost all chess writers are "modern" in the general sense, since chess itself in its current form started about AD 1500. Should be more clear, e.g. "Since 1980..."
    • I wouldn't mind a substitute for "modern", but I'll be happy with whatever Krakatoa wants here. See the latest thread at WT:LEAD. It's a given that the lead section will sacrifice precision; providing more precise answers is what the rest of the article is for. The word "modern" has a specific meaning to historians, but for most people, the meaning is closer to an ambiguous "in recent years". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The introduction says that "The advantage is about the same, however, for tournament games between humans and games between computers." and that "Adorján ... forcefully arguing that the general perception that White has an advantage is founded more in psychology than reality." Since computers do not have a psychology, one should try to clear the inconsistence of the two sentences. I would drop the word "forcefully" to make clear that the Adorján's theory is rather unproved.

Best,--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 09:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I like your point; I removed "forcefully". It's a bit POV for the lead section, anyway. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Saying Adorján argues "forcefully" is not POV in the least; he's quite over the top in his 2004 and 2005 books. E.g., "The tale of White's advantage is a delusion , belief in it is based on mass psychosis ". Adorján 2004, p. 5. "How I deserved to be chosen by God to get his message 'BLACK IS OK!' through to chess-playing mankind, I know not." Adorján 2005, p. 7. Rowson observes that Adorján "sheds more heat than light" on the subject of whether White has an advantage, and a section of Rowson's book is entitled, "Is Adorján OK?" Evidently not: "I do have a nice bipolar, rapid-cycle depression ... . ... it's like Hell in miniature!" Adorján 2005, p. 7. As for computers, Adorján explains that, " The figures of computer battles . . . are a reflection of their Masters - who are PEOPLE! And that is also - as I see it -- the explanation." Id., p. 145. All of that said, I don't particularly care about the "forcefully", particularly since I don't get into all of this in the article. Krakatoa (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:29, 27 June 2008 [31].

General relativity[edit]

previous FAC


Self-nominator I've been re-working this article since July 2007 and, after the recent helpful peer review, I am confident it now meets all the FA criteria. Main contributors: When I came aboard in 2007 and started streamlining the text and adding quotations, EMS had already done a substantial amount of work. Since then, there have also been numerous additions and improvements by MP and JRSpriggs. Markus Poessel (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look good, the links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your additional comments!
  • Everitt et al.: Have added "Project Report: NASA, Stanford University, Lockheed Martin"
  • Wright: I'd gone ahead and added a link to the author's Wikipedia entry, Edward L. Wright, when I noticed that I'm not citing that reference anywhere. Must have missed it on my removing-uncited-references run; have removed it now.
Glad to hear everything else checks out. Markus Poessel (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support As they did with Introduction to general relativity, Markus and the other GR editors have made a thoughtful and accessible and ESSENTIAL encyclopedia article worthy of featured status. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Support - overall seems very good. I have a few quibbles, mostly about prose, though:

Resolved comments from Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood
  • Both British and English spelling are present in the article: i.e. "modelling" as well as "generalization" and others. It seems predominantly British, so I advise changing the American spellings.
Note that -ize spelling is gaining ground in UK english. I believe the Oxford for example actually has "generalization" as the dominant spelling now. So, I think this might not be a very big issue. (TimothyRias (talk) 08:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I don't think this is correct: since the 1970s, there has been a significant move from the zed to the es. The OED is widely deprecated for failing to adjust the order of its spellings (still zed first—unbelievable). TONY (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main is though that using -ize with UK spelling is not necessarily incorrect. I suggest sticking with -ize since (among other things) it is the preferred spelling for journals like Nature. The use should be consistent throughout the article though. (TimothyRias (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
According to WP:SPELLING the -ize is acceptable. Awadewit (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to hear that -ize is acceptable. The current use is consistent, as I just re-checked. Markus Poessel (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From classical mechanics to general relativity" sounds... awkward. Couldn't it be changed to something like "Origins in classical mechanics"?
  • "1915/16"? Does it mean that a single work was published in multiple volumes, or that multiple works were published? If it's the latter, then it should probably be "1915–16".
  • "Examples are gravitational time dilation, the gravitational redshift of light, and the gravitational time delay; the theory's predictions have been confirmed in numerous observations and experiments." - seems to changed subject in the middle of the sentence.
  • "Still, a number of open questions remain, the most fundamental being how general relativity can be reconciled with the laws of quantum physics to produce a complete and self-consistent theory of quantum gravity." - is the "open" really necessary? The context implies they're not solved, and therefore open.
I think the use of "open" in this context is fine. Yes, it is implied by the context. But, it very customary to talk about "open" problems/questions when talking about a field of research. Being explicit helps readers that briefly skimming the text. (TimothyRias (talk) 08:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • "There is evidence that, indeed, such stellar black holes as well as more massive varieties of black hole are responsible for the intense radiation emitted by certain types of astronomical objects (such as active galactic nuclei or microquasars)" - why are the parentheses necessary?
  • Redundancy: "Nevertheless, a number of exact solutions are known, although only a few of them have direct physical applications."
  • More redundancy: "There are some exact solutions describing gravitational waves, for instance a wave train traveling through empty space"

Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just drive-by-fixed the parenthetical bit before signing off for the night. I might comb through the article later. I'm not a regular editor of the article. {{Nihiltres
Replies by Markus Poessel to the preceding comments by Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood
  • British vs. American spelling: is there, by any chance, a helpful tool that ferrets these spelling variants out?
  • "From classical mechanics to general relativity" vs. "Origins in classical mechanics" - your suggested replacement doesn't quite hit the mark. The section itself is a progression from classical mechanics to an unusual interpretation of Newtonian gravity to the inclusion of special relativity to general relativity. I wouldn't want to overstress "classical mechanics". I tried to come up with another title during the review (as, per the MOS, any section title that has the article title in it needs special scrutiny), but couldn't come up with a suitable alternative.
  • "1915/16" - the work was presented at a session of the Prussian Academy of Sciences in late 1915, and the proceedings of that session were published in early 1916. Should we be more explicit? Or say "presented" in 1915?
  • "Examples are gravitational time dilation,...": changed second part to "the theory's predictions regarding these effects have been confirmed in ...".
  • "open questions" - I would agree with TimothyRias that it is a common expression. And in writing about research, it is not uncommon to ask questions and then answer them for the reader (although that's not my particular writing style), so yes, the openness of a question is worth pointing out, I think.
  • Quasars/Microquasars: you're right, and I see you have already removed the parantheses.
  • "a number of exact solutions" - I would like to leave that in there. Many people are used to an equation having only one or a few solutions. Here, we have a huge potential of possible solution, know a considerable number (but negligibly small with what we could know), and only a few of them are relevant for astrophysics.
  • "some solutions for gravitational waves" - removed "some".
Thanks for your support, and your comments! Markus Poessel (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the 1915/16 phrasing to "presented by Albert Einstein in 1915 and published the following year". Is the result satisfactory? It still seems slightly awkward, to me, in that the detail of its being presented one date and published another is tangential to the definition of the topic, but the date issue is now explicit. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 23:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Use en dashes for page ranges, chapter ranges, etc. in references and all over the article, per WP:DASH. Gary King (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brighterorange has a wonderful bot that can fix these dash issues. If you ask him nicely, he'll run it on the article for you! Awadewit (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the hint Awadewit, but I read it only after going through the article by hand. The five (out of 150 or so) cases that escaped earlier scrutiny have been fixed now. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The part that I've read up to now (until Definitions and basic applications) is very well written, so if the article continues like that I will support. Some comments on the contents:

  • The lead section does not explicitly mention that general relativity is currently accepted as the working theory of gravity by most. Why? I'd guess that's one of the most important things about general relativity (presuming it's true).
  • I had to read the sentence "When, in 1929, the work of Hubble and others made it clear that our universe is indeed expanding, and thus better described by expanding cosmological solutions found by Friedmann in 1922, Lemaître formulated the earliest version of the big bang models." in the history section a couple of times. Perhaps it can be rewritten?
  • I stumbled upon "Space, in this construction, still has the ordinary Euclidean geometry." in Geometry of Newtonian gravity. It took me a while to realize that you probably mean that space is Euclidean, but spacetime is not. That is, if you restrict the connection to the three spatial dimension, you get the connection of non-curved Euclidean space (I forgot what this connection is called). Correct?

-- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead section: talk about missing the obvious... I've fixed it now. Good catch.
  • Hubble: that is a consequence of the times when the article was much longer than it is now, and underwent massive streamlining. Streamlining seems to have gone too far, here, as your comment indicates. I've expanded that passage.
  • Euclidean space: you read the sentence correctly. I've expanded the description a bit to, hopefully, make it clearer.
Thanks for your comments! Markus Poessel (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edit throughout would be great. It's not badly written, but needs a few rough edges shaved off by someone who's unfamiliar with the text. Even a non-expert. Here are quite random examples.

  • "Still, a number of open questions remain,"—Replace "still" with "however".
  • Can you dispense with "indeed" in this formal register?
  • "classical mechanics and Newton's law of gravity admit of a geometric description"—ungrammatical. And MOS doesn't like "one" much (see following sentence).
  • It's highly technical (see the opening), and it's full of valuable links. Why, then, are such simple items as "lines" and "speed" linked? I'd ration them throughout.
  • "In the language of symmetry: where gravity can be neglected, physics is Lorentz invariant as in special relativity rather than Galilei invariant as in classical mechanics." Should that colon be a comma?
  • "They are defined by the set of light cones (see the image on the left). The light-cones define a causal structure: for each event A,...". I never like "see ...". Why not: "They are defined by the set of light cones. In the image, the light-cones define a causal structure: for each event A,...". TONY (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned to hear that, in previous copy-editing runs, we missed some of the passages that should have been corrected. I've made about half of the concrete changes you suggest; the reasons I did not make the others are as follows:
  • There is one remaining "indeed" (in a footnote) that seems to be necessary.
  • In what way is "classical mechanics and Newton's law of gravity admit of a geometric description" ungrammatical?
  • "In the language of symmetry: where gravity can be neglected," - replacing that colon with a comma is not an option. It would imply that, when we use the language of symmetry, that means that gravity can be neglected. Instead, what follows after the colon is a description in the language of symmetry.
  • Light-cones: I could change "see" to "cf." or similar, but your reformulation would change the meaning. That the light-cones define a causal structure is true in general, not only in the image.
Many thanks for your comments. Markus Poessel (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: some users, notably WillowW and MP, have now kindly started another copy-editing run, and are hopefully shaving off whatever rough edges you were concerned with. Markus Poessel (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - with a few comments.

  • The first sentence as become untidy with recent edits wrt the presentation year and publication years.
  • This sentence It unifies special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, resulting in a description of gravity as a property of the geometry of space and time.' Would be better if resulting in a description simply read and describes.
  • There's tautology in open questions remain, how about simply there are unanswered questions?
  • The novel effects are not novel in the sense of new, here it should be 'newly discovered.
  • Why the use of curious wrt gravitational lenses? One of the many delights of relativity is that this phenomenon was predicted and is fully explained.
  • The introductory paragraph of Definition and basic applications:

The derivation outlined in the previous section contains all the information needed to define and characterize general relativity. Having defined the theory, we will enumerate some of its properties and then address a question of crucial importance in physics: how the theory can be used for model-building.

Should be depersonalised. I don't like the non-encyclopedic, lecture-like, we....

Last, it would have been nice to have read that Einstein later considered the invention of the cosmological constant as the biggest mistake of his life. Thanks for a superb article, one that forms the core of all great encyclopedias, you should be very proud. GrahamColmTalk 16:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and your support. I have made changes that (hopefully) address all of your concerns. Markus Poessel (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (following up from above):

  • In the section Definition and basic properties: "Instead, gravity changes the properties of space and time, which changes the straightest-possible paths that objects will naturally follow. The curvature is, in turn, caused by the energy-momentum of matter." The first sentence says that gravity causes curvature, the second says that energy-momentum causes curvature. Huh?
  • In the Horizons section, it says: "by the second law of black hole mechanics, the area of the event horizon of a general black hole will never decrease with time." But then it talks about Hawking radiation, which does cause black holes to shrink; that seems to contradict each other. I assume that the radiation carries an entropy increase that compensates for the entropy decrease caused by the shrinking black hole, but this is way beyond my knowledge, so I'd prefer for someone else to fix it.
  • The penultimate sentence ends with "in the hope of creating opportunities to test the theory beyond the limited approximations it has been tested so far even in the binary pulsar measurements." That seems rather convoluted, perhaps even grammatically incorrect; I can't figure out the sentence construction.

Thanks for addressing my earlier comments. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All good points – I have made changes that, I hope, will address your concerns. Thanks for your additional comments! Markus Poessel (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support A very good article, comprehensive, with many references. There are some sentences that appear too long, with too many commas. Perhaps these can be shortened; I have made some attempt to do this for part of the article. I also have a gripe about there being too many statements of the form A : B. For example, In the language of symmetry: where gravity can be neglected, physics is Lorentz invariant as in special relativity rather than Galilei invariant as in classical mechanics. I think the colon could be replaced by a comma for better flow. If these can be cleared up (not necessarily all of them), and the prose improved slightly, then that should improve the article. MP (talk•contribs) 17:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, and your comments – and, incidentally, for your previous edits. If you have any specific long or colon-infested sentences to get rid of, I'm open to suggestions. Your concrete example, though, is one where the change from colon to comma would greatly encourage a misunderstanding (as I mentioned in my reply to TONY, above), so I would like to keep that. Markus Poessel (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A note for future reference. There is excess markup (bolding) throughout this section and unsigned "Resolved" and "done" comments; since the reviewer has indicated Support, I'm not going to take the time to step back through the page diffs to find out who marked the items done and resolved, but on future FACs, please sign your entries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coincidentally, I've just asked a number of people if they could hide their resolved comments in cap box templates. That should make the discussion a bit more readable, I hope. Markus Poessel (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks. Firstly, let me just say that you have transformed the article (virtually single-handedly) into a superb one since EMS' revision. Excellent work. I have not made significant changes to this article in a long while, but when I saw the FAC discussion, it motivated me to help out. I've just finished going through the article and performed any changes I could immediately make. Let's deal with the colons and semicolons first. My general concern re colons and semicolons in this article is that there are too many of them; I believe this makes the article flow less smoothly. The following may be long-winded and obsessive, but I will list here all the colon phrases/sentences in the article. Then, perhaps underneath each 'suspect', we can discuss if a change is required. I'll probably start the discussion with a complaint and an alternative, but we can take it from there.

In Geometry of Newtonian gravity:

  • The preferred inertial motions are related to the geometry of space and time: in the standard reference frames of classical mechanics, objects in free motion move along straight lines at constant speed.
  • According to Newton's law of gravity, and independently verified by experiments such as that of Eötvös and its successors, there is a universality of free fall (also known as the weak equivalence principle, or the universal equality of inertial and passive-gravitational mass): the trajectory of a test body in free fall depends only on its position and initial speed, but not on any of its material properties.[15]
    • Take out the colon and replace with , where the trajectory of a test body...
      • One nice thing about colons is that they provide a bit of a break, exactly because they break the flow. Here, my hope was that the colon would allow the reader to breathe before going on to the second part of the statement. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A simplified version of this is embodied in Einstein's elevator experiment, illustrated in the figure on the right: for an observer in a small enclosed room, it is impossible to decide, by mapping the trajectory of bodies such as a dropped ball, whether the room is at rest in a gravitational field, or in free space aboard an accelerated rocket.[16]
    • Replace colon with full stop and start a new sentence with For an observer...
      • Mm. I think the colon makes it more readable – it shows that the two sentences are connected, and in fact the second one directly describes the outcome of the experiment. Since the second sentence doesn't repeat the word "elevator", that connection might not be a bad thing... Markus Poessel (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As can be shown using simple thought experiments following the free-fall trajectories of different test particles, the result of transporting spacetime vectors that can denote a particle's velocity (time-like vectors) will vary with the particle's trajectory; in mathematical terms: the Newtonian connection is not integrable.
    • Ouch - the semicolon and colon ! After the semicolon, write mathematically, the Newtonian connection is not integrable.
      • I could agree to "mathematically speaking"; just "mathematically" sounds as if there were a mathematical and non-mathematical way of being integrable that could readily be assumed to apply in this situation. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can make that compromise. I'll fix it. MP (talk•contribs) 16:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done.
  • The result is a geometric formulation of Newtonian gravity using only covariant concepts, in other words: a description which is valid in any desired coordinate system.[17]
    • Replace with The result is a geometric formulation of Newtonian gravity using only covariant concepts, i.e. a description which is valid in any desired coordinate system.[17]

In Relativistic generalization:

  • In the language of symmetry: where gravity can be neglected, physics is Lorentz invariant as in special relativity rather than Galilei invariant as in classical mechanics. (The defining symmetry of special relativity is the Poincaré group which also includes translations and rotations.)
    • As Markus explained above a few times, this should be kept: keep.
      • Resolved.
  • The light-cones define a causal structure: for each event A, there is a set of events that can, in principle, either influence or be influenced by A via signals or interactions that do not need to travel faster than light (such as event B in the image), and a set of events for which such an influence is impossible (such as event C in the image).
    • Take out the colon and replace with a full stop and start a new sentence with For each event A,...
      • Again, isn't that the function of a colon: to make clear that what follows is more closely connected to the preceding sentence than a full stop would indicate? I usually read these texts aloud to myself to get a proper feeling for how they flow. When I read with a full stop here, I do come to a stop. With a colon, there is a caesura, but it is clear that there is no real break. So no, I would vote to keep the colon here. I'm convinced this is one of the things colons were made for: the "special function... of delivering the goods that have been invoiced in the preceding words" (Fowler, who doesn't like colons that much) Markus Poessel (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the light-cones, in conjunction with the world-lines of freely falling particles, contain even more information: they can be used to reconstruct the space-time's semi-Riemannian metric, at least up to a positive scalar factor. In mathematical terms, this defines a conformal structure.[22]
    • No need to say there's more info. It's implied once the above is replaced with, In conjunction with the world-lines of freely falling particles, the light-cones can be used to reconstruct the space-time's semi-Riemannian metric, at least up to a positive scalar factor. In mathematical terms, this defines a conformal structure.[22]
  • Bringing gravity into play, and assuming the universality of free fall, an analogous reasoning as in the previous section applies: there are no global inertial frames.
  • Instead there are approximate inertial frames moving alongside freely falling particles. Translated into the language of spacetime: the straight time-like lines that define a gravity-free inertial frame are deformed to lines that are curved relative to each other, suggesting that the inclusion of gravity necessitates a change in spacetime geometry.[23]
    • Replace with, Instead, there are approximate inertial frames moving alongside freely falling particles. In the spacetime setting, the straight time-like lines that define a gravity-free inertial frame are deformed to lines that are curved relative to each other, suggesting that the inclusion of gravity necessitates a change in spacetime geometry.[23]
      • I don't think that's quite the same meaning. I wanted to make the point that there are different languages one can use to describe this, one of them being that of spacetime geometry. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Einstein's equations:

  • Drawing further upon the analogy with geometric Newtonian gravity, it is natural to assume that the field equation for gravity relates this tensor and the Ricci tensor, which describes a particular class of tidal effects: the change in volume for a small cloud of test particles that are initially at rest, and then fall freely.


In Definition and basic applications:

  • The derivation outlined in the previous section contains all the information needed to define general relativity, describe its key properties, and address a question of crucial importance in physics: how the theory can be used for model-building.
    • Replace with, The derivation outlined in the previous section contains all the information needed to define general relativity, describe its key properties, and address a question of crucial importance in physics, namely, how the theory can be used for model-building.
      • Agreed, changed (w/o the comma after the "namely", though). Markus Poessel (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done.

In Definition and basic properties:

  • Phenomena that in classical mechanics are ascribed to the action of the force of gravity (such as free-fall, orbital motion, and spacecraft trajectories), correspond to inertial motion within a curved geometry of spacetime in general relativity: there is no gravitational force deflecting objects from their natural, straight paths.
    • Replace the colon with a semicolon ?
  • As it is constructed using tensors, general relativity exhibits general covariance: its laws—and further laws formulated within the general relativistic framework—take on the same form in all coordinate systems.[35]
    • Probably keep.
      • I would agree. The sentence after the colon explains what the sentence before only mentions: general covariance. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Resolved.

In Light deflection and gravitational time delay:

  • Closely related to light deflection is the gravitational time delay (or Shapiro effect): light signals take longer to move through a gravitational field than they would in the absence of that field. There have been numerous successful tests of this prediction.[62]
    • Replace with, Closely related to light deflection is the gravitational time delay (Shapiro effect), where light signals take longer to move through a gravitational field than they would in the absence of that field. There have been numerous successful tests of this prediction.[62]
      • I'm not sure the "where" works. "due to which" would be closer to the mark, but seems awkward. Again, since this is what a colon is meant to do, I would like to keep it. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about, Closely related to light deflection is gravitational time delay (Shapiro effect), the phenomena whereby light signals take longer to move through a gravitational field than in the field's absence. There have been numerous successful tests of this prediction.[62] MP (talk•contribs) 16:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Gravitational waves:

  • One of several analogies between weak-field gravity and electromagnetism is that, analogous to electromagnetic waves, there are gravitational waves: spacetime ripples which propagate at the speed of light.[64]
      • Again, what follows the colon explains "gravitational waves" – this is, I think, the quickest way to do so. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Orbital decay:

  • Not so for a close binary pulsar, a system of two orbiting neutron stars, one of which is a pulsar: from the pulsar, observers on Earth receive a regular series of radio pulses that can serve as a highly accurate clock, which allows precise measurements of the orbital period.
    • This is less clear to me than the others, but I would still vote "keep". A full stop would leave the sentence "Not so" without a clear connection to what the "Not so" means. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Geodetic precession and frame-dragging:

  • One is geodetic precession: the axis direction of a gyroscope in free fall in curved spacetime will change when compared, for instance, with the direction of light received from distant stars—even though such a gyroscope represents the way of keeping a direction as stable as possible ("parallel transport").[81]
    • Again: what comes after the colon directly defines what comes before. It could also be "geodetic precession, the fact that the axis direction", but I think that is less elegant. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Black holes and other compact objects:

  • Whenever an object becomes sufficiently compact, general relativity predicts the formation of a black hole: a region of space from which nothing, not even light, can escape.
    • Replace with, General relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact object will form a black hole, a region of space from which nothing (even light) can escape.

  • Black holes are also sought-after targets in the search for gravitational waves (cf. Gravitational waves, above): merging black hole binaries should lead to some of the strongest gravitational wave signals reaching detectors here on Earth, and the phase directly before the merger ("chirp") could be used as a "standard candle" to deduce the distance to the merger events–and hence serve as a probe of cosmic expansion at large distances.[108]
    • OK – I don't think the first sentence is so dependent on the second as to make the colon important, so it works with a full stop instead. Changed. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.

In Cosmology:

  • Once a small number of parameters (for example the universe's mean matter density) have been fixed by astronomical observation,[113] further observational data can be used to put the models to the test:[114] successful predictions include the initial abundance of chemical elements formed in a period of primordial nucleosynthesis,[115] the large-scale structure of the universe,[116] and the existence and properties of a "thermal echo" from the early cosmos, the cosmic background radiation.[117]

In Horizons:

  • The best-known examples are black holes: if mass is compressed into a sufficiently compact region of space (as specified in the hoop conjecture, the relevant length scale is the Schwarzschild radius[129]), no light from inside can escape to the outside.
    • I think that, here, the colon is the most efficient way of linking the sentences. With a comma, the sentence would run to too many clauses. With a full stop, "black hole" would need to be repeated. Markus Poessel (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using global geometry, later studies have revealed more general properties of black holes: in the long run, they are rather simple objects characterized by eleven parameters specifying energy, linear momentum, angular momentum, location at a specified time and electric charge.
    • Replace the colon with a full stop and start a new sentence with In the long run,...'
  • This is stated by the black hole uniqueness theorems: "black holes have no hair", that is, no distinguishing marks like the hairstyles of humans.
    • Probably keep.
  • There are other types of horizons: in an expanding universe, an observer may find that some regions of the past cannot be observed ("particle horizon"), and some regions of the future cannot be influenced (event horizon).[135]
    • Since this is at the beginning of a paragraph, full stop should work. Changed. Markus Poessel (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.

In Singularities:

  • The famous singularity theorems, proved using the methods of global geometry, say otherwise: singularities are a generic feature of general relativity, and unavoidable once the collapse of an object with realistic matter properties has proceeded beyond a certain stage[141] and also at the beginning of a wide class of expanding universes.[142]
    • Since the second part delivers what the first part promises, I'd like to keep the colon. Especially since it fits in so naturally with the verb "say". Markus Poessel (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Evolution equations:

  • Each solution of Einstein's equation encompasses the whole history of a universe—it is not just some snapshot of how things are, but a whole spacetime: a statement encompassing the state of matter and geometry everywhere and at every moment in that particular universe.
    • On re-reading, I didn't quite like that sentence. I've reformulated this, which also got rid of the colon. Markus Poessel (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.
  • By this token, Einstein's theory appears to be different from most other physical theories, which specify evolution equations for physical systems: if the system is in a given state at some given moment, the laws of physics allow extrapolation into the past or future.
    • I'd like to keep that one. Second part directly explains what is meant by the first part. Markus Poessel (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These decompositions show that the spacetime evolution equations of general relativity are well-behaved: solutions always exist, and are uniquely defined, once suitable initial conditions have been specified.[147]

In Quantum gravity:

  • The demand for consistency between a quantum description of matter and a geometric description of spacetime,[161] as well as the appearance of singularities (where curvature length scales become microscopic), indicate the need for a full theory of quantum gravity: for an adequate description of the interior of black holes, and of the very early universe, a theory is required in which gravity and the associated geometry of spacetime are described in the language of quantum physics.[162]
  • One attempt to overcome these limitations is to formulate a quantum theory not of point particles, but of minute one-dimensional extended objects: string theory.[166]
    • Replace with, One attempt to overcome these limitations is string theory, a quantum theory not of point particles, but of minute one-dimensional extended objects called strings.[166]
  • Using the initial-value-formulation of general relativity (cf. the section on evolution equations, above), the result is an analogue of the Schrödinger equation: the Wheeler-deWitt equation which, regrettably, turns out to be ill-defined.[171]
    • Replace with, Using the initial-value-formulation of general relativity (cf. the section on evolution equations, above), the result is the Wheeler-deWitt equation (an analogue of the Schrödinger equation) which, regrettably, turns out to be ill-defined.[171]

MP (talk•contribs) 20:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, but I have a few comments:
1) The article writes Einstein equations as
One unexplained tensor is proportional to another. As written the equations are pretty useless for a reader not familiar with the GR. I suggest writting something more informative, like this at least
where G (and other parameters are) is ...
2) It would be desirable to mention that the equations in empty space-time are simply
3) The article contains only one formula. However writing expression for the gravitational radius may be beneficial for 'Black holes and other compact objects' subsection.
4) It should be stressed that the motion of matter in GR can not be arbitrary chosen—the (covariant) divergence of energy-momentum tensor must be zero. So the GR imposes the strong conditions on the laws that govern the matter. This is a big difference with Maxwell equations that require only charge conservation.

Ruslik (talk) 08:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1) and 2): I agree that the formula using Ricci tensor and scalar is of better use to those who are not skipping the formulae anyway. I've reformulated that section, and added the vacuum equations.
  • 3) I don't think it fits in the astrophysics section very well. We did have it in the "Horizons" section, where the Schwarzschild radius is mentioned explicitly. It got axed when streamlining was the order of the day, but I'll be more than happy to put it back.
  • 4) A very good point. I've made a change that should take care of it.
Thanks for your comments and your support! Markus Poessel (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with warm congratulations to Markus on so successful an article. I left some minor points on the Talk page, but I'm sure that those will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Willow (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – this is pure nitpicking, but some wikilinks point to disambiguation pages. I've fixed some and tagged a number of others. In such a highly technical article, accurate links are important. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, and for fixing misleading wikilinks. I've just gone through the whole article once more, catching some links that didn't quite lead where they were meant to lead, but which had escaped earlier sweeps. Markus Poessel (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:29, 27 June 2008 [32].

Under the Bridge[edit]

"Under the Bridge" is an immensely popular 1991 song by Red Hot Chili Peppers that helped shape the alternative rock movement. It is the highest charting alt rock song on the Billboard Hot 100, reaching number two. The article has been a GA since early May, and some copyedits have been performed, albeit minor ones. It is extremely comprehensive, covering every aspect of the song's writing, construction, release, acclaim and aftermath. Please do not hesitate to identify any flaws or problems you can find; all comments, questions, and concerns will be addressed as soon as possible. NSR77 TC 21:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Still needs some work, I think, definitely on the prose and some other minor points. A few full dates in the refs missing wikilinks (#31 and #33 for instance). I'm dubious as to whether specific quotations from reviewers should be included in the lead, and certainly choosing to use the Tampa Tribune seems bizarre given they aren't really an authoritative voice on the music scene. I think a general overview of the legacy of the song is fine. Prose isn't great throughout, a few examples:
  • The first sentence is misleading - I read it as the album which was released on that date.
  • "The lyrics were originally written as a means for vocalist Anthony Kiedis to express a feeling of loneliness and despondency, and as a reflection on narcotics and how it impacted his life." - "originally" is redundant; should it be "his feelings" rather than "a feeling"; narcotics is plural so how "they" influenced his life. The whole sentence would probably be stronger as "Anthony Kiedis wrote the lyrics...".
  • "Under the Bridge" became both a critical and commercial success" - "both" is redundant
  • "In 1992 the song peaked at number two on the Billboard Hot 100 and was eventually certified platinum by the RIAA" - was it certified platinum in 1992? Not sure the year is necessary at all since it's probably assumed it peaked in the year it was released rather than any other.
  • "The single's success was only widened with the release of its accompanying music video, which was put into heavy rotation on music television channels." - "only" and "accompanying" aren't necessary, and possibly the first "music" isn't either (I think it's implied but maybe not).
  • Viewers choice needs an apostrophe
  • The "however" at the end of the second paragraph isn't contradicting anything and the whole sentence is pretty stilted with so many commas.
This suggests it needs a pretty thorough copyedit throughout before it should be passed. But the information in the article is good, and the references look pretty good, so just needs a bit of work on polishing it up. Trebor (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards removing the Tampa Tribune quote, but the main reason I had included it in the first place was to give the reader an understanding of the single's popularity at the time. Despite this, Tampa Tribune isn't, as you pointed out, a notable music publication. Prose-wise, most of your comments are aimed at extraneous wording; I'll have a look at the rest later, when I have some more time. NSR77 TC 01:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • No dead links (good)
  • Paragraphs are good sizes
  • Put 'References' after 'Notes'
  • Link the dates in the references
  • Ensure references are in ascending order when in a row, such as "this'."[4][1][5] Kiedis" needs to be "this'."[1][4][5] Kiedis"

Gary King (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments regarding criterion three:
    • Image:Red Hot Chili Peppers - Under the Bridge.ogg is not low bit rate (WP:NFCC#3B); 139kbps is even superior to CD quality.
      • I don't have access to Audacity (this file was uploaded by another editor), though I can hopefully find some other method of fixing this issue. Please be patient. NSR77 TC 01:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you want me to upload a new version of that one (a la Image:RHCP-UnderTheBridgeLiveHydePark-31s.ogg, which I presume is OK with elcobbla)? giggy (:O) 07:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • They say 192kbps is "CD equivalent" and even that's not losless from a CD... I don't see why this isn't reduced... I think it's fair use paranoia. gren グレン 09:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please provide a diff where I indicated concern of litigation that would constitute "paranoia". The requirement for low resolution/fidelity is Policy; featured articles are expected to be in full compliance, even if it is a "minor" tweak. 128 kbps is generally considered CD-quality. 192 kbps indeed losses some additional artifacts, but the difference is not generally distinguishable in the general populace. Exact kbps is moot; if 60 kbps is good enough for the other clip in the article, why is 139 kbps needed for this clip? Giggy, thank you for responding in a helpful manner; it would be great if you could do that. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:FruscianteUTB.jpg is not low resolution (also NFCC#3B). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Well Written --'Andrea 93 (msg) 04:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's no need to devote four sentences to "Give it Away". Par it down to the pertinent details. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • About the YouTube videos, are we linking to copyright violations? I'm on a slow enough connection, I'd rather not open the videos up.
  • What makes www.everyhit.com a reliable site?
  • Probably don't need the four sources on the sentence in the third paragraph of Live performances. A bit of overkill.
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out fine with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of the videos are of copyrighted material as far as I can tell. The Everyhit reference has been replaced. NSR77 TC 22:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Could you merge the first two sentences? They're short and stubby at the moment.

Fixed. NSR77 TC 17:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The success of "Under the Bridge" led in part to the departure of guitarist John Frusciante, who was instrumental in its composition." - this would be awkward to someone who didn't know why he left... might wanna clarify that.
  • "Driving home after rehearsal the same day" - you haven't specified a day (else I didn't notice), so "the same day" is awkward.
  • "I don't ever want to feel/Like I did that day/Take me to the place I love" - last lyrics quote ("In the city I live in/The City of Angels/Lonely as I am/Together we cry") was four lines, I think it'd be better if you did the same here (so include "take me all the way").
    • I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking... NSR77 TC 17:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Meh, don't worry about it. giggy (:O) 02:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Under the Bridge", as such, was selected to be Blood Sugar Sex Magik's second single." - does this really need to be said (considering the context)?
    • It is a good sentence transition. NSR77 TC 17:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pause and Play included the song in their unordered list of the "10 Songs of the 90's";" - I don't see it here?
    • It's somewhere in there. NSR77 TC 17:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see it; I did a Ctrl+F for the song title, the band name, the album title, and got nothing every time. giggy (:O) 02:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The video ranked eighth in a poll dictated by the readers of the Chicago Tribune called "The Best and Worst of '92"" - 8th best or 8th worst?
  • "Recently, however, Kiedis has..." - recentism. When does "recently" refer to?

Overall, nicely done. giggy (:O) 07:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • the allmusic review was written years after the song was out. A comment like ""become an integral part of the 1990s alterna-landscape," could have only been made in retrospect, so it shouldn't be alongside the ocntemporary reviews
  • "Due to the success of "Give it Away", the band did not foresee "Under the Bridge" as being equally viable."--the causality is kinda lost on me.
  • ""Under the Bridge" is not interpreted in a different manner than what is on the record—the track is largely performed...the same as it was recorded." Note the redundancy and repetition.
  • "Released as the band's fist live album, it became the highest-grossing concert at a single venue in history, with a total revenue of $17.1 million." The sentence is very awkward: are you saying an album became the highest-grossing single-venue concert in history?
    • Fixed.
  • Play.com is a commercial website, what makes it reliable?
  • "Gym Class Heroes continued to play "Under the Bridge" during their upcoming tour" huh? The tour is upcoming right?
  • The whole Live performances needs a ce I think. A few details could be trimmed and its a little too hard on Anthony. ""Under the Bridge" is also performed on the Chili Peppers' concert video Off the Map released in 2001, and their exclusive iTunes Originals set-list in 2006.", for one, can go.
    • Why remove a sentence that is pertinent to the topic? I don't see any logic in that. NSR77 TC 03:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music video has variations of "superimposed" appearing in four adjacent sentences.
  • By "highly-rated" TV program, you mean that it has high TRP ratings right? I think critical acclaim instead comes off by using that phrase.
  • I'm not comfortable with the use of fan-recorded live YouTube videos as sources. While it does feature band members themselves, there isn't a publisher we can attribute the reference to. Further, while the present case might seem okay, the practice does give scope for OR. For example: if a famous musician was a buddy of yours; you could interview him, record it, put the video on YouTube and then cite it on Wikipedia. Since there isn't anything like a publisher or fact-checking involved, we don't know the accuracy of the interview (you could have doctored the tape, he might have been joking etc). So I don't think the YouTube videos you're citing could be considered reliable sources. indopug (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm busy at the moment and will consider the rest of your comments tomorrow, but in terms of the YouTube video, it is merely his opinion. There are no facts being relayed- it is simply the singer's thoughts on a certain topic. If you can find me a particular guideline that I can not argue against, fine, but I don't agree with you at the moment. You're essentially saying anything anyone says or thinks is wrong unless conducted in an edited interview. If he was joking, why would his band play the song on tour or a tribute album? While your thoughts could theoretically be the case, I don't see any reason we can't believe the vocalist. NSR77 TC 00:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say just get rid of the video, mainly because it's talking about live covers, and there's probably a number of bands that have covered this song live. Imagine how insane the covers section at "Smells Like Teen Spirit" would be if live covers were included (which used to be in the article, so go through the history to see what a mess that was before they were all removed). The band covering the song on record is enough. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not just the Gym Class Heroes video, even the Frusciante video where he compares it to "Andy Warhol" and "Rip-Off" has same problem of no publisher. indopug (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wesley, there's only a minor reference to the live version. NSR77 TC 20:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image concerns resolved, Kelly hi! 23:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images/media.

  • Image:UndertheBridge.jpg should be reduced in size per WP:NFCC#3b - the community standard for album covers seems to be about 300x300.
  • Image:FruscianteUTB.jpg rationale should address WP:NFCC#8 a little better. Right now it only says "The screenshot is being used for informational purposes only...". The commentary in the article would seem to justify the use of the screenshot to increase reader understanding; the rationale on the image page just needs to be improved somewhat to state why it is being used.
  • For the two audio samples, the page should specify the length of the original work so that a reviewer can verify the clip length meets the "30 seconds or 10%, whichever is shorter" rule from WP:SAMPLE. Recommend using {{Music sample info}} on the media description pages to ensure all required information is there.

Kelly hi! 15:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The writing is mostly good, except for when I hit the "Composition" section, which I've had a partial go at. Did another editor do this bit? Still at issue:
    • "who had spent most of his career singing very fast, largely due to his limited ability to reach high notes."—I don't see the causality here (the "due to").
      • Reworded it to change emphasis. NSR77 TC 20:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "E major seven chord progression"—E major seven ... "E-major 7th chord" (E–G#–B–D#) might be understood by a larger proportion of readers (unsure; would you use the standard popular-music abbreviation here?). "Seven" alone is odd, and it's usually a figure. There's another further down. But the conceptual issue is that it's a chord, not a progression. The latter involves more than one chord, so you'd have to explicate where it moves to.
      • I'm not exactly sure how one would present this on Wikipedia, though I imagine 70+ per cent of the readers do not know how to play guitar, therefore using what you suggested may be confusing (correct me if I'm wrong). The word "progression" snuck in there. It is not a progression, the song halts for a few seconds after the chord is played. NSR77 TC 20:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "struck at a moderately fast tempo to provide a beat"—No, "struck at a moderately fast beat".
    • "jumps back into a verse that once again uses an E major seven chord prior to commencing the chorus"—euuw; a verse comences a chorus? Grammar. Back ... once again? Unsure how to fix this; unsure of the intended meaning.
      • Reworded this, though it is a bit tricky of a sentence to phrase. NSR77 TC 20:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In between" what?
    • "As the choir, Kiedis and drums drop off" ... a cliff?

Then:

    • Can we drop the "in order" in "in order to", or I'll do a Hitler salute.
      • Where exactly is that? NSR77 TC 20:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You type "in order" into your finder ... TONY (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done - save the Hitler salute for another day... giggy (:O) 10:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you let me know where people get the "Summary" text from in the audio-clip info pages? I want to copy-edit the source. TONY (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been copyediting the article for NSR77 since the GA nom, but haven't done too much work on the Composition section. I'll clean it up. As for for Summary text, there's endless variations on it, so if you want to edit it yourself, I see no problem with that. I'm not sure if that template is provided anywhere in particular. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was the only editor working on the article; I agree with you the "Composition" section is by far the weakest, though. Not sure why. NSR77 TC 20:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update the article? indopug (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an expansive Frusciante fan, I've never heard that. When I read it I was surprised; especially since Frusciante has never mentioned he even listens to Joe Jackson in the thousands of interviews he's given. Furthermore, I'm led to believe Rolling Stone made a connection themselves, rather than asking Frusciante. NSR77 TC 11:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article just came out, and the paragraphs for each song entry are rather insubstantial. I don't see the list worth mentioning right now. Maybe down the line. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I have done an extensive copyedit on the article in the hopes of improving the prose. Please take a close look and see if the current text says what it is supposed to. I have a few questions/comments.
    • This sentence seems too vague to me: "The song has remained an inspiration to other artists and became a seminal component of the alternative rock movement of the early- and mid-1990s." Perhaps it could be replaced with a mention of some of the Best of lists it has been placed on and a sentence about the numerous covers
      • It is mainly a representation of the cover versions and best of lists, but including them all in the intro isn't practical. Is this what you meant? NSR77 TC 02:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first paragraph of the Origins and recording section does not flow well to me. Was the song recorded before Rubin got there or after Rubin asked Kiedis to use the song?
      • It is basically opening the paragraph up, telling the reader Rubin visited Kiedis often. NSR77 TC 02:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead mentions "David Fricke of Rolling Stone" while the body said "David Fricke of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch" - can you please correct one?
      • Fixed.
    • The quote from Philip Booth of The Tampa Tribune is sourced to David Fricke's St. Louis Post-Dispatch article. Is this correct?
    • I removed some of the sentences in the Live performances section that dealt in general with Kiedis's singing. This has already been mentioned in various places in the article (including in this section) and I think it is out of place to go too indepth.
    • " and in 2004 at London's Hyde Park over the course of three days, in which an estimated 250,000 people attended" - this makes it sound like they played this song for over 3 days at Hyde Park.
      • Fixed.

Karanacs (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, I am satisfied with the revisions. --Laser brain (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Oppose, 1a. It's seen a lot of improvement, but it's still rough around the edges. Considering the shape it was in when listed, it should have had a substantive peer review before being listed here.[reply]
    • "The song has remained an inspiration to other artists and became a seminal component of the alternative rock movement of the early- and mid-1990s." Mixed tenses, please revise.
    • "It was originally recorded on an acoustic guitar in Anthony Kiedis' personal studio." This sentence seems oddly out of place as it interrupts the narrative.
      • This sentence should not be there and appears to have been added by an inexperienced user. NSR77 TC 03:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Kiedis wrote much of the song during a period when he felt distraught and emotionally drained." Don't you mean "lyrics" and not "song"?
    • "Driving home after rehearsal in April 1991, Kiedis felt a profound sense of loss—his best friend, in some form, resented him." I don't really understand what the "in some form" is doing.
    • Attention to capitalization and punctuation of quotes is needed.. if the quote is a complete sentence, capitalize the first word and place the period inside the end quote. There are other errors such as missing end quotes from quotes within quotes.
    • The Composition section needs attention from a musician; it appears that some items were assembled from sources but they don't flow well or make much sense musically.
    • "... the silence is broken by closed hi-hat and wood block struck at a moderately fast beat." This doesn't really make sense, musically. What's a fast beat? Do you mean a fast tempo?
    • "The song continues with another verse and subsequent chorus, when the bass finally enters." This bass walked into a bar...
    • "The second chorus transitions into a different verse, where Chad Smith begins to play the drums ..." You wrote earlier about a high-hat and wood block?
    • "Kiedis has noted that sometimes forgets or rearranges song lyrics in the verses." I don't know what this means. --Laser brain (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm very busy at the moment but will tackle these issues either tomorrow or the day after. Thanks for your patience. NSR77 TC 03:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NSR77 asked me to copyedit some more. I'll try and finish that up soon. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the article's flaws have been addressed. If any of the above editors feel there are any further problems or that something that has been missed, fell free to elaborate. NSR77 TC 02:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:07, 25 June 2008 [33].

Susianna Kentikian[edit]

Self-nomination. This is a short article I've been working on, which I believe meets the FA criteria. It's currently a good article (see nomination here), a peer review is archived here. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support comments An interesting read, since I know nothing about the subject. I thought there was a slightly newsy edge to the text, which occasionally led to infelicities. jimfbleak (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved to my satisfaction jimfbleak (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. First mention of nation says female boxer from Germany – only later do we find she’s not German, better to put nationality first, then say she lives in Germany
    Done.
  2. knockout my in-line spellchecker says "knock out" or "knock-out", but it's UK spelling and this article is in US (defense) so perhaps it's correct there?
    Well, the WP article says knockout, so I guess that's the 'official' WP nomenclature, but it's all the same to me really.
  3. asylum seekers' homes owned by refugees or government facilities?
    Most likely government (city) facilities, but do you really think that is relevant? One of the next sentences, "again living in government facilities for asylum seekers" does imply that anyway.
  4. and only the intervention of, among others, her amateur trainer, Frank Rieth, calling lawyers, the media, and local politicians, avoided their final expulsion. surely could be better phrased
    I slightly reworded it, but to be honest, I couldn't think of much right now. Suggestions would be appreciated;)
  5. was discovered as a professional boxer by?
    I'm afraid the exact person who discovered her is unknown.
  6. a cut by Zurita really?
    I changed it to "was cut over the left eyebrow"?
  7. She also filmed a four-round sparring session would have been easier to get someone else to hold the camera
    "took part"?, not sure what might be an adequate replacement here
  8. Christina Surer und Markus Beyer Nien
    Fixed. giggy (:O) 07:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (edit conflict with above; sorry if there are any duplicates)

  • The references need some formatting work... all dates need to be wikilinked (per MOS:SYL). Also, website titles don't need italics (see MOS:ITALICS)
    • Done.
  • "and she now lives with her family in an apartment near her Hamburg boxing gym.[5] She is currently applying for German citizenship.[10]" - WP:RECENTISM... I think you should reword so it's more like "in 2007, she..." wherever possible.
    • The exact time they moved in is not known, so I'm not sure how this could be rephrased. The second sentence could of course be easily changed once her citizenship is resolved.
      • Good point... I suppose if they do end up moving you can change/update it (with a known date), and same for citizenship. Just make sure you do! :-) giggy (:O) 13:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which caused additional problems" - kind of a "duh" moment here... I don't think you need to say that.
    • Done.
  • "was stopped following a cut by Zurita" - what's a cut?
    • A cut is a laceration, a rather common boxing term, you really think this should be further explained here?
      • Heh... I was thinking there's a move (like a "hook"). Note to self; be less intelligent. Yeah, not a problem. giggy (:O) 13:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fight was voted among the five "Top Fights of the Year" by WomenBoxing.com." - should the website have italics?
    • Done.
  • "Early on, Kentikian was considered one of the big talents in German boxing" - this implies she isn't anymore...
    • Not sure I agree with you here, but even so, would it be wrong? Once you are an accomplished athlete, you are no longer considered a mere talent, I guess?
      • The way I see it, being seen as a talent is different to being proven as a talent - she's reached the latter now as a pro. giggy (:O) 13:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about "Even at the start of her career, Kentikian was considered one of the big talents in German boxing ..."? EnemyOfTheState (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yup, that works fine. giggy (:O) 02:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a nice article, thanks for your work on it! giggy (:O) 07:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to address your concerns. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. giggy (:O) 02:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What makes http://www.boxrec.com/index.php a reliable source?
  • Sources used in the article don't need to be listed in the external links section
    • Maybe not, but does it hurt? The Boxrec and WomenBoxing.com links are two informative sites and I doubt many readers go through the reference section to find them. I can take them out, of course, if you think that is necessary.
      • I'm not such an MOS guru that I know if that's a requirement or merely a suggestion. Striking it (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://www.womenboxing.com/index.html a reliable source?
  • Can't even find an about us page, but they seem to be owned by Freitag Marketing Services, which sounds promotional. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I recognize that these websites don't rival the NY Times for reliability, but both are news websites with editorial oversight. Fightnews is the best known boxing news site, while WomenBoxing.com is the leading website on female boxing. They are not blogs or fan sites. The main reason those sites are used is really to increase the number of English language sources; I could probably replace them with German sources, but I doubt that would be desirable.
Otherwise sources look good, the links all checked out with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the reliablity of the non-English sources Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boxrec is also used in Michael Gomez, which is also at FAC right now. You asked about the site on the Gomez talk page, and got a response that it was referred to by mainstream media. If it's an issue here, it will be for Gomez as well; if you think Boxrec isn't reliable you should say so at the Gomez FAC too. I'll try to find more media mentions later. Giants2008 (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or, I could just being spacey and forgot about the Gomez one. Not a worry now. Thanks for reminding me. (Work is keeping me hopping this week, so expect more than the usual spaceyness...) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the German sources, I can assure you that Der Spiegel, Die Welt, Die Zeit, Hamburger Abendblatt are all respected newspapers/magazines that should be considered reliable sources. Also, almost the same text is a good article on the German WP (de:Susianna Kentikian) which uses the same sources. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better reliable foreign language sources than non-reliable English language sources, especially as this is a BLP. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I replaced all references that used Fightnews.com or WomenBoxing.com articles. I used http://www.eastsideboxing.com/ (and its sister site http://www.boxingnews24.com/) to source the world title fights, because from what I understand, this website was deemed reliable during the Michael Gomez FAC. The only WomenBoxing source that remains is a reference about a "fight of the year" award from that website. If this self-referencing should be unacceptable as well, that sentence must be removed. EnemyOfTheState (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They would be reliable for the fact that they gave an award, yes. All done, looks like to me! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved Giants2008 (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - This is the article that I relate to most out of all my reviews to this point. I have experience working on a lesser-known female athlete, and seeing this become featured would give me great hope that I could get an article featured at some point. There is still work to do, however. The comments above are a great start, and here are some from me.

  • I rarely take issue with the first sentence, but I have a problem with "female boxer". We try to use gender-neutral language here; I recommend changing it to "professional boxer". For an example, see Laila Ali.
    • Done.
  • Two consecutive sentences start with she. Change one of them.
    • Done.
  • Early life: "the daughter of veterinary doctor Levon and his wife Makruki Kentikian." Try "Levon Kentikian and his wife Makruki." I'm not even crazy about that and think the veterinary part gets in the way. Can this be moved to a later sentence?
    • I changed that, though I'm not sure where the veterinary doctor could be moved, other than an own sentence, and that seems a bit redundant?
  • Third sentence of section is a borderline run-on.
    • I'm not sure what sentence you are referring to exactly.
      • "In 1992, the family first moved to Berlin, Germany, and stayed at asylum seekers' homes, but due to the violence at these facilities and their poor knowledge of the German language, they left Berlin and moved to Moldova and later to Russia, where Kentikian went to school for a short period of time." This is a prime candidate to be split into two sentences. Giants2008 (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. (I just started a new sentence with the 'but', not sure if you wanted the whole sentence to be restructured) EnemyOfTheState (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The family returned to Germany in 1996, relocating in Hamburg, again living in government facilities for asylum seekers." I prefer "The family returned to Germany in 1996 and relocated in Hamburg,".
    • Done.
  • The sentence after the previous comment has a ton of commas; I count nine. Can this be tightened up?
    • As I mentioned above, I slightly reworded it, but couldn't think of much at the moment. Suggestions would be appreciated;)
      • It looks a little better now. It's just naturally comma-heavy and I'm not sure it can be changed easily. A couple more suggestions here: change from "calling" to "who called" and "avoided" to "prevented". Giants2008 (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume three-year professional contract is referring to boxing. State this to avoid confusion.
    • Done.
      • I actually wanted clarification for the Early life section, since it is the contract's first mention. Should have made this clearer. Giants2008 (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amateur career: "and her ambition always to attack the opponent until knockout" Reword to "and her ambition to always attack until she knocked out the opponent,".
    • Done.
  • Professional career: Link unanimous decision. A reader who knows nothing about boxing won't know the difference between this and a split decision.
    • Done.
  • "proved to be a first test in Kentikian's professional career" Picky, but I'd rather see "the first test of Kentikian's professional career".
    • Done.
  • A Hamburg link isn't required here because there was one earlier.
    • Done. (I suppose you were talking about the fourth paragraph)
  • Kentikian in the media: A person's name shouldn't be in the title, so this should be "In the media", "Media figure" or something similar.
    • Done.
  • Spotlight Boxing is linked earlier in the article. So is Regina Halmich, but I'm undecided on whether you should remove her duplicate link because she seems like an important figure in Kentikian's story.
    • I took out the Spotlight Boxing link, since the text directly explains that term, but I think linking Halmich again is probably a good idea.
  • The suggestion above gives me an idea. What does Halmich think of Kentikian? Is she complimentary of her or is there some kind of rivalry between the two?
    • She is complimentary of her and considers Kentikian her legitimate successor. But I'm not sure where to include such a statement in the text and whether it would be even relevant.
      • It doesn't appear to be a great fit anywhere. Just trying to come up with a new idea. Giants2008 (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another prose suggestion: "World Wok Championships, where she teamed with Sven Hannawald, Christina Surer and Markus Beyer to win the four-person competition." I think this is a nice improvement over the current writing.
    • Done.
  • I see an oddity in current reference 20. It lists the publisher as Fightnews.com, but the link goes to WomenBoxing.com. It might well be correct, but I just wanted to ask about it.
    • Fixed.

That's it from me. Thank goodness for short articles. I'm pulling for this one, so please take care of these for me. Giants2008 (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to address all your concerns. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing preventing me from supporting is the source concerns above. If the only reliable references for this article are foreign-language, so be it. Of course it would be better to have English-language references on the English Wikipedia, but if they aren't from quality sources you should go with German ones. Giants2008 (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps wikilink the dates and accessdates in the references so they format according to user preferences? Gary King (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks perfect to me, well sourced and well-written. Congratulations! Idontknow610TM 17:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'm satisfied that this is good enough now after the various fixes. This will be an interesting test case to see how a shorter article does at FAC, and I'll be pulling for it. Giants2008 (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Query; why are all the publishers italicized in the citations? See WP:ITALICS, periodicals, journals, newspapers and magazines are in italics, websites are not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally support, but still a bit of polishing to do on the writing.

  • "called-up"—not a double adjective, so hyphen should be removed.
  • "But" at the start of a sentence is usually deprecated in favour of "However,". Don't ask me why, but it's a widely observed practice.
  • Usually I think there are too few commas in nominations; here, there are a few too many in places: "Her family received a permanent residence permit in 2005, when she signed a three-year professional boxing contract that established a stable income." And the third sentence at the top, again before "when". And "until she knocked out the opponent, earned her the nickname". I think someone else should go through it with a hawke's eye on those odd commas, although most are good.
  • A distinctly WPian disease I call "startitis": "Kentikian began working as a cleaner". Just "Kentikian worked as a cleaner ...".
  • "as very few boxers wanted to face her"—It's stronger without the "very".
  • Overlinking: Anglophone countries really don't want to be linked even once, but you've done this repeatedly. Nor "Germany" for a second time. These ones dilute your valuable links and splash bright blue needlessly.
  • Table's pretty good.
  • "outside of"—spot the redundant word.

A new person to sift through the whole article would be good: shouldn't take a copy-editor too long. TONY (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed all of that, except for the "Kentikian began working as a cleaner" sentence. Your suggestion would also change the meaning of it: having worked only at the age of 16. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:07, 25 June 2008 [34].

Harry Trott[edit]

Self-nomination I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets the Featured article criteria. The article is comprehensive and fully referenced and has been peer reviewed and copy-edited. Mattinbgn\talk 09:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good work, as always. Support. A few musings:

Lead
  • "indiscipline" - I don't think I've often heard this word, relative to the use of illdiscipline. Would the latter be preferable?
  • I think the words have a subtle difference. Illdiscipline to me seems to refer to specific instances of poor discipline, while indiscipline refers to a state of having no discipline, if that makes sense. Let me reflect on this one and find some good dictionary definitions -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best definition I could find was "lack of discipline" Now changed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "first of a line of" - Is that intended to be "in a line"?
  • reworded, more precise and (i hope) more elegant now. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "quick to pick up a weakness in an opponent" - "in opponents"?
  • "After he was discharged, he eventually returned to cricket, eventually playing" - possibly try to avoid using eventually twice in quick succession like that.
Early life and career
  • "Born in Collingwood, an inner suburb of Melbourne, Trott was the third of eight children born to" - is the double use of "born" avoidable?
  • A very minor reword has removed the second use of the word, while retaining the meaning. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "junior cricket with the local Capulet club" - is there a link for Capulet club? I must confess, I don't know what it means :|
  • It is just the name of his junior cricket club without any further significance as far as I can tell. (Their big rivals were of course the Montagues :-)) I was trying to avoid using the word "cricket" too often. I can make this clearer if you think it will assist. Given that it has left you confused about my meaning it may be worth doing. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more on the Capulets from a horribly formatted article here "In 1884 Northcote Star was vying for a first sporting trophy for Darebin in the final of the Armfield Brothers Cup. The match was against a Collingwood based club ‘Capulet’ and in a sign of the times took a month of Saturdays and two venues to complete due to poor weather. Despite a spirited bowling effort in Capulet’s second innings, Northcote Star narrowly lost the match and would wait until 1890 for its first trophy" -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His chances for inclusion in the Australian squad for the forthcoming tour of England were enhanced when a number of leading players made themselves unavailable" - were they connected, or for various illness/injury/commitements etc.?
  • "innings.[11]At" - needs a space.
  • "a change to the leg before wicket (LBW) law that would aid bowlers of Trott's style seemed imminent" - this begs for a half-sentence explanation of what it was :)
  • Will take a look at this one to see what I can do -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Test cricket
  • You never actually state that he was selected - it skips from his chances to the first day at Lord's. Maybe worth clarifying to avoid ambiguity.
  • given a minor reword, could possibly do with some more however. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was being a complete and utter failure "inauspicious", or would it better described as "uninfluential" or similar? Maybe the media didn't get all stabbety-stab with people who scored <5runs and did nothing else back then :)
  • I like "inauspicious"; "uninfluential" seems a little bland. I don't think as much was expected of debutants then. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  • Link Cambridge University?
  • I tossed and turned over linking Cambridge University Cricket Club and decided not to as it was the "Past and Present" team rather than the university that Trott played. I didn't think about linking the university itself. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe add a comma after Past and Present for sentence flow (or non-flow).
  • I just noticed, inconsistent capitalisation of "The Ashes" (ie. "t" or "T") exists between the lead and this section. There's actually inconsistency within this section itself :|
  • Seeking guidance from WP:CRIC on the correct form. I should have picked up the inconsistency, however -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus seems to be The Ashes, now all consistent. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "England's score reached 60 when their first two batsmen were dismissed" - would "before" be clearer than "when"?
  • "England, regardless, still won the match by an innings" - worth including "and X runs"?
  • Might be worth linking "run out".
  • "from [England]"[47]" - full stop missing.
  • "and the former captain" - implies there's only one former captain, maybe worth considering removing the "the".

That's up to the "Captain of Australia" section done. Will try to do the rest tomorrow or Thursday. Daniel (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the comments to date. There are still a few I am working on and will respond to later. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments Overall very nicely written. I will defer to editors that understand cricket to ensure that the cricket terminology, etc., is proper.

All issues resolved — Bellhalla (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing a space: …in 29 first-class innings.[11]At this point…
  • Use the "upright" image tag for portrait-orientation images
  • Missing full stop in …felt in matches played away from [England]"[47]
  • I don't think en route really needs to be italicized; it's sufficiently anglicized by now.
  • WP:MOSQUOTE recommends against linking from within quotations as is done in … Trott as "with the exception of [Billy Murdoch], ... incomparably the best captain…. If you want to link to Murdoch, recast the sentence so that his name is outside the quote.
  • Removed, although given that the link does not require modifying the quote (it needed modifying for clarity anyway), is not misleading or confusing (indeed it reduces confusion) and one link is unlikely to clutter the quote too much, I would argue that could possibly be acceptable. However I would prefer not to recast the sentence for the sole purpose of including the link. Splitting the quote would create an awkward sentence. -- Mattinbgn\talk 13:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Indian/English cricketer is referred to both as KS Ranjitsinhji and as K. S. Ranjitsinhji. Internal consistency, please.
  • Disbandonment? How about disbanding instead?
  • In As Trott's illness precluded his selection…, I would recommend because (if that's the intended sense) to avoid the ambiguous as.
  • Such was Trott's standing in the cricket community that the other candidate for the position withdrew rather than oppose him.[70] I would recast to avoid the awkward phrasing.
  • Reworded to Trott's high standing in the cricket community saw the other candidate for the position withdraw rather than oppose him. Trust that this is less awkward. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would reword …claims a familial relationship of some kind to … to something less nebulous, like …says he is a distant relation to…
  • Per WP:ELLIPSIS, the ellipsis in the block quote should be spaced. Also ellipses that lead in quotes should be spaced with a non-breaking space. There are quite a few of these that need.
  • Check for proper logical quotation style throughout (see WP:MOSQUOTE): two examples I noted that may need attention are …that the innings "... stamped him as a batsman of the highest class." and felt that he, "... barely maintained the reputation he had so honestly gained during the tour of 1888 ... it cannot be said that he came up to expectations."
  • Have gone through the entire article and made about a dozen changes. I think I have got them all. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why, with the wikilink, the parenthetical bat again in …were forced to follow-on (bat again); an innings…?
  • On another article, the use of the term was not clear and this was a way of clarifying the use of the term for non-cricket fans. I thought it may be useful here as well, but the use of the term in this article is more straightforward and it probably not needed. Now removed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't place left-aligned images directly below lower-level headings, as with the section "A national institution"

* The tense shift in the quote after Doctors noted that Trott continually stood in one place… is jarring

  • Changed and hopefully less jarring -- 09:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Check for stray capitalization in sentences with quotes. Two examples: he in …and that "He would like to shake hands with the six men… and His in …The Referee wrote "His bowlers felt he understood the gruelling…

This article is close. Most of what I found are nitpicks. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • CricketArchive is a site dedicated to cricket statistics and records. One of its general editors is Philip Bailey who has been described as taking "this abtruse branch of science to levels that in other fields win Nobel Prizes" (Wisden 2004, p.9) by Matthew Engel, the editor of Wisden Cricketers' Almanack. For the purposes that it is used for here—scorecards and averages—it is as reliable as any other published source on the topic. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection, the cemetery site used the Australian Dictionary of Biography as the source for its claims. As a result it is possible to use the ADB article to support the same facts, and this is what I have done. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Another strong cricket article. What else is new? Here are my nit-picks.

  • Spelling in second paragraph: "two Test".
  • Comma after Victoria?
  • Early life and career: In New Year's day 1886, is day usually capitalized in British English? It usually is in American English.
  • There is a link for century in the next section. I'd move it here, since I got lost with double century and half-century.
  • Current reference 6 is not after punctuation. Since a comma isn't needed, move it to the end of its sentence.
  • Test cricket, First tours of England: Unneeded George Giffen link here. There is already one in the previous section.
  • There was about four instances linked! Now removed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Australian revival and Wisden cricketer of the year: Unneeded The Ashes link.
  • "He scored 63 and 70 not out in a winning team." I don't understand team in this context and think "winning effort" would be better.
  • The Trott brothers: Two run out links in section. Someone asked about this earlier; maybe they missed an existing link.
  • No I think I added the link to the earlier use but didn't remember to remove the link from the later use. Now fixed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd review more, but Sir Donald is calling from wherever he is for a look. There seem to be some duplicate links later in the article, so watch out for those. Giants2008 (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, it has certainly improved the article. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Apparently everyone else is at Donald Bradman too. With that in mind, I'm back after some quick cleaning of the article yesterday. These are the rest of my comments.
  • In Captain of Australia and "A national institution", I see two instances of "9 wickets". The cutoff for written numbers is typically 10, although editors have differing opinions on this.
  • Last paragraph of "A national institution": "twelve test players". Number issue again.
  • I would like to keep this as it is. The full phrase is "one of twelve Test players" and I think it is better to remain consistent inside the phrase and "one of 12 Test players" does not scan well to me. From MOSNUM: "Within a context or a list, style should be consistent (either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs)" -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Legacy sub-section is quite stubby. Can this be expanded or moved?
  • It is an awkward section to fit anywhere, but I have moved it to the "Personal Life" section, although it could probably fit just as well under the "personality" heading. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good otherwise. Giants2008 (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the review and your support. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Although Trott was a versatile batsman, spin bowler and outstanding fielder, "... it is as a captain that he is best remembered, an understanding judge of human nature"" - I'm not the biggest fan of quoting stuff like that (in the lead, at least)... surely you can discuss how he was best as a captain in your own words.
  • I could, I guess I was trying to avoid demonstrating POV. Plus, I really love the wording of that quote; especially right up front. Let me ponder on this one -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His slow leg spin bowling was often able to deceive batsmen through subtle variations of pace and flight, but allowed opposition batsmen to score quickly." - a bit confusing... first part says it was great, second part implies (at least to the uninitiated) that he sucked...
That is almost exactly what it means. He was good at taking wickets but he was also easy to score runs from. Not so much inconsistent as willing to allow batsman an opportunity to try and score from him in the hope of making a mistake. Think of it as like a football player with lots of attacking skills but poor defence. Trott was not a champion cricketer by any means, he was a good one but not one of the greats. His leadership was the most remarkable thing about him. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in total he toured England four times;" - I think you can remove the "in total he"
  • "praised as a "national institution" and his team as having "done more for the federation of Australian hearts than all the big delegates put together"" - says who? (That's partly why I dislike quoting in the lead... saying who you quote makes it take up too much space...)
  • The quote is attributed in the "A national institution" section (to a newspaper editor). Let me think if I can include the concept in the lead without the quote and without clumsy attribution. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After he was discharged, eventually he returned to cricket" - redundancies (after/eventually)
  • Not really. He did not immediately return to cricket but waited until he had been sent to Bendigo and had been there for some time. Perhaps, "After he was discharged, in time he returned to cricket" Your thoughts? -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the lead done... some general comments;

  • "Trott was an outstanding fielder, usually at point" (image caption) - kinda POV... the image doesn't really show "outstanding" fielding...
  • No, it shows a fat man trying to catch a ball, but I can't write that :-) It is a photo of Trott fielding and he was a excellent fielder at point, at least in his younger years. What I have picked up is that the fielding claim, mentioned in the lead as well, is not included in the "Playing Style" section and is therefore not cited. Will fix. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image caption in "A national institution" section could do with more...
  • I hate writing captions, especially writing one for a bloke just standing there! Had a go, let me know what you think. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All sources seem OK. I'll try to get to the rest of the prose some time soon - ping me if I try and weasel out of it! ;-) giggy (:O) 11:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your comments. Thanks for taking the time to review. look forward to the remainder. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 12:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:07, 25 June 2008 [35].

1926 World Series[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article status because I believe it meets the FA criteria. I enjoyed writing this article, and I hope you enjoy reading it! Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support

  • "The 1926 World Series was the championship series of the 1926 Major League Baseball (MLB) season" link to 1926 Major League Baseball season here.
  • "featuring the St. Louis Cardinals against the New York Yankees. The best-of-seven series, which took place at Yankee Stadium and Sportsman's Park, resulted in the Cardinals defeating the Yankees four games to three." I would reword this so the bit about the teams is one sentence, the bit about the venues is another and the bit about the result is a third.
  • "10 World Series" ten
  • "Yankee Stadium was packed with 61,658 fans on 2 October to watch the inaugural game of the 1926 World Series. The thousands of fans who could not get tickets for the game went downtown to City Hall to watch the game's progress being charted on two large scoreboards." needs ref. Also why "packed" it appears again in game 3?
  • What is the purposes of having Image:Lou Gehrig HoF.jpg, in game 6?
  • The announcer call in game 4 is a bit long, do we need all of it? It also doesn't say who the announcer was.
  • "They rebounded from their 1926 loss by winning the title in 1927 and 1928." poor wording. Also replace "their" with "this".
  • I think the Summary section should be at the bottom.
    • It's a convenience to readers who want to quickly access the scores of each game. I've seen this format in other World Series articles as well. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Isn't that what the infobox is for? Buc (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surly the Aftermath section could be exspanded?

Impressive though for an event from over 80 years ago. Buc (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Expand on what is already there for a start. If you don't think you can expand it much though, remove it, it's not worth having a section that short. Buc (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If a section is too short, we shouldn't have it? I'll see what I can do, but I don't think removing the section is appropriate. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • There isn't anything mentioned in it at the moment that really has anything to do with the 1926 World Series. Buc (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's an "Aftermath" section. It's supposed to cover the team and its players after the WS. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • There is not rule that says you have to have an Aftermath and certainly not one about what it's "supposed" to cover. Buc (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Who said anything about a rule. I believe readers should be aware of what happened to the players and teams of the 1926 WS after the series. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The problem is it has nothing to do with the 1926 World Series. Buc (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the "Babe Ruth and Johnny Sylvester" section for and why does it come after game 4?
    • It's famous 1926 World Series lore. It doesn't make sense to have it before the game, since I reveal Ruth's Game 4 heroics. It's appropriate to have this after Game 4, since this was when the story was first publicized. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Make it a sub-section and explain this then.
        • A sub-section of "Matchups"? I clarified why Johnny Sylvester story is important.
  • "Furthermore, he pitched a complete game" why "Furthermore"?
  • Background section seems to be mostly about the two team rout to the series.
  • "Babe Ruth hit three home runs, a World Series record only equaled twice since: again by Ruth in 1928, and by Yankees slugger Reggie Jackson in 1977." Is this noble enough for the lead?
  • What does "GA" mean?
  • "far surpassing his 8–13 record and 4.92 earned run average of the previous season" but you don't mention his record or earned run average for this season.
  • "13:30 in either Eastern or Central Standard Time, depending on the location of the game" I'm not sure what the rules are about how times should be written on here, but personally I would put 1:30 p.m. Also this sentence is kinda confusing, why not just say "local time"?
  • "Doc Woods, the team's trainer, sewed up Ruth's pants on the ballfield, much to the amusement of the audience." needs refs.
  • "espective pitching duels earlier in the series." the reader may not know what a pitching duel is.
  • "after back-to-back singles" reader may not know what back to back means.
  • "Hornsby then grounded out to Koenig to end the inning. Gehrig, Lazzeri and Dugan all grounded out in the bottom of the seventh inning. In the top of the eighth, Bottomley launched a single into right field. Yankees manager Miller Huggins came out of the dugout and took Shocker out of the game, calling in Bob Shawkey from the bullpen to replace him. Shawkey struck out the first two batters he faced, and Bottomley was tagged out by Koenig from a throw from catcher Severeid, after attempting to steal second base. The Yankees could not produce any runs in their half of the inning." needs refs.
  • "Meusel then hit a single in right field, but unsuccessfully tried to stretch it into a double." why was he unsuccessful?
  • "it is, to date" as of 2008
  • What makes Sports-Reference, Inc. and Retrosheet reliable sources?
  • "the city could fittingly welcome the Cardinals" why fittingly?
  • The second paragragh of game 3 seems to be rarther poor prose, why does it end "Both teams were held scoreless until the fourth inning."?
  • "The 1926 World Series resulted in one of the most famous anecdotes in baseball history" then why isn't it mentioned in the lead?
  • "The contest for first place in the National League was heated." POV
    • Is "close" an acceptable alternate for "heated"? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC
      • If that's what you meant. Apon thinking about this again, it's not really POV but still poor wording. I also notice "the Reds" are not linked or called by there full name when they are first mentioned.
        • Someone added it while copyediting (the original wording wasn't too great, so we can't go back to that). "Close" is a bit ambiguous, so I'll go back to "heated". Reds is linked, by the way. See first sentence of the the section. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in Cardinals team history." as oppose to some other history?


Ok will give it another read when I have more time to see if there are any other problems. Buc (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • Do we really need Image:Bob-meusel cleaned.jpg?
    • Why not? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there any real reason for it to be there?
        • Well, I wanted an image for each game section. The image is in good quality, and I think it's a nice visual for the article. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • In other words, it's there just for the sake of it. Buc (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why, do you think it should be removed? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is really no reason to have any of them save to one in the infobox since that's actually from 1926 World Series. I can understand having one or two images for the sake of it, an article with no images looks very dull, but not a whole bunch of them. This isn't really something that would stop it from becoming a FA since they are all free use (as far as I can tell) just something that would make it better. Buc (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok it all looks good now save so I'll give weak support. However one problem I still have is that reading it as a baseball fan I can follow it fine but I wonder how someone who knows nothing about game would cope. Basicly the same thing Karanacs said. Buc (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Buc (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm still working on de-jargonization and I've asked Andonic—who's baseball illiterate—to take a look at the article. Hopefully, the text will be easier to understand in the near future. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - This is the first article involving my beloved Yankees to reach FAC during my time as a reviewer, and it's a World Series they lost? Come on! :-( Seriously, here are question marks from my first look.

  • "under starting pitcher Herb Pennock" Under seems odd to me. Can another term be used instead?
  • Why is Babe Ruth not linked at first use?
  • "by Ruth again in 1928". Again doesn't work well here.
  • "and the series championship" Pick between series and championship.
  • "decided to try to steal second base". Try "decided to try stealing second base".
  • Background, fourth paragraph: There is an inconsistent use of hyphens when it comes to pennant winner.
  • Cincinnati Reds linked twice in section.
  • It says both teams were confident heading into the series, but there is nothing on the Cardinals in this paragraph. Also, weren't the Yankees heavy favorites going into the Series? The underdog angle could be interesting.
    • I have some NYT articles regarding the WS odds. I'll look into it. I couldn't find a quote from any of the Cardinals regarding each team's confidence. In a previous version of the article, I mentioned that Hornsby expressed confidence that his team would win. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch out for jargon like bloop, loaded up the bases, bunt, and shot. As a sports fan this is difficult for me to catch, but FAs must be accessible to all.
  • "and grounded the ball to the shortstop".
  • "Cardinals' losing pitcher Sherdel pitched" Redundant. Maybe "threw"? Something also seems off at the start of this sentence.

I left you a note in Bole's photo comment, so take a look at that as well. Giants2008 (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Game 2: "Alexander had pitched a 12–10 record in 200 innings" Pitched? Try compiled.
  • The caught stealing thing could be confusing for non-baseball fans, since he was actually safe. I'm sure people will wonder why it says caught, and won't know the rule on scoring such plays.
  • Sloppy wording: "Hornsby grounded out to the Koening".
  • "Yankees' manager Miller Huggins came out of the dugout and took Shocker out of the game and called in Bob Shawkey from the bullpen to replace him." Try "out of the game, calling in".
  • Game 4: "Hoyt had thrice been part of the New York Yankees team that went to the World Series". Try "Hoyt had thrice been part of New York Yankees teams that went to the World Series".
  • "allowing Gehrig to score and keep the bases loaded" Keeping.
  • I just noticed that Art Reinhart is an external jump in the Game 4 box score. Red links are not evil. If someone comes to this page and sees it, they can create an article themselves. That's how Wikipedia grows.
  • Game 7: The writing implies that Lazzeri's long fly ball didn't reach the stands. It did, but of course it went foul.
  • Another reviewer mentioned this earlier, but Aftermath could easily be expanded. The Yankees fielded the famous Murderers' Row team the following year, and the Cardinals became the dominant team in the National League for the next 20 years. There is much that can be written about this.
  • I see that Aftermath has been removed. I consider this a disappointment, as there was a lot that could have been written about the future success of the two teams. It was a short section, though.
  • Barry Levinson's book is listed in Further reading. This should be removed since it is used as a reference, per WP:CITE.

There were a couple other things I saw, but I can't remember them now. I also fixed a few things myself. If I had to vote on this one, I would be Neutral. It is well-referenced and fairly comprehensive, but the game recaps aren't compelling to me. There are some awkward passages at times. like these two from game 7: "Les Bell just barely made it to first base after shortstop Mark Koenig accidentally kicked the ball while trying to field it." Just barely? "and it appeared Haines had run into some problems." The bases were loaded and his finger was bleeding from a popped blister, so it goes without saying that he had "some problems". Perhaps this is from reading a lot of newspaper recaps, but I don't feel comfortable supporting this. I do wish you luck, as I always like to see sport-related articles succeed here. Giants2008 (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the need to keep an article encyclopedic, but I still think this can be improved. I previously left more comments above, and here are a few more.
  • Game 1: "behind Johnny Mostil winner George Burns." Should be "behind winner George Burns and Johnny Mostil."
  • Game 2: Unneeded Babe Ruth link.
  • Game 3: Cardinals doesn't need a link.
  • "future Baseball Hall of Famer right-handed knuckleball pitcher Jesse Haines" First part of this is very awkward.
  • "but the Cardinals added to their lead by picking a run" Do you mean picking up?
For a good example of what I consider a quality game recap, see 2005 ACC Championship Game, a recently promoted FA. One more piece of advice I will give you is to try obtaining newspaper stories on the games, as well as those in The Sporting News or similar publications. Fresh information from these could be helpful. Giants2008 (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did obtain all the NYT recaps of the games. I only used a few of them, though. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

This is what I get for traveling. Oops! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Brain cells are officially mush, sorry about that! It's now on my cheat sheet, so hopefully I'll not forget again! All done! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie

Overall awesome article - filled with jargon and POV though. Some comments:
Game 3
Game 4
  • ” Starting Game 4 for the Yankees was future Baseball Hall of Famer Waite Hoyt. In the 1926 season,..” – Do you really need “1926” – you never mentioned the season with other pitchers.
  • ” who had led the team with a .741 winning percentage and 258 innings pitched.” – Shouldn’t “and 258…” be “in 258…”
  • ” Koenig, Rhem surrendered a solo home…” – “surrendered?”
  • ”Bob Meusel followed by drawing a walk…” – Drawing?
  • ”… followed by drawing a walk, and was tagged out at home after attempting to…” Hmm… shouldn’t “and” be “but?”
  • ” Rhem's pitch out of the park for his…” – Blah! Jargon!
  • ” Joe Dugan knocked him in with…” – “Knocked?”
  • ” went full-steam towards…” – Reword “full-stream”
  • ” game tied at three apiece and…” – Is “apiece” really necessary?
  • ” before unleashing a long…” – “Unleashing?”
  • ” unsuccessfully tried to stretch it into a double, and he was tagged out at second base…” – You already said “unsuccessfully”
  • ” allowing two earned runs on 14 hits,” – “two” or “2” – “14” or “fourteen?”
  • ” The Cardinals' five pitchers combined to give up 10 Yankee runs and 14 hits….” -- (See above comment)
  • ” With the series tied at two games apiece…” – “apiece” necessary?
  • ” teams eagerly anticipated…” – Eagerly?
  • Stopped at “Babe Ruth and Johnny Sylvester” - That’s it for now, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 02:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Fixed the link. Only years have to be unlinked, if they are not used with a month and day. Gary King (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I felt the links were relevant (they were only linked when associated with a particular World Series). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All other images look good from a copyright standpoint, nice work. Kelly hi! 20:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support just did a read through and I'm not seeing anything to cause concern. giggy (:O) 09:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the prose is much improved and more accessible. --Laser brain (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Oppose, 1a for now. I didn't read past the lead because I got bogged down in prose issues. If the lead is representative of the rest of the text, it's rough. Why no peer review?[reply]
    • Image:Ruth1926-3.jpg does not have a sufficient fair use rationale; please use {{Non-free use rationale}}.
    • "The Cardinals and Yankees finished atop the National and American League, respectively." Imagine you know nothing about baseball... finished what?
    • "This was the first World Series appearance for the Cardinals, and it resulted in the first of 10 World Series championships in team history and the first of five clashes these two teams would experience during the next 38 years." Not well-written. Clashes with what? Two things clash - much simpler than experience a clash.
    • "They rebounded from this 1926 loss ..." Why re-state "1926"? Much clearer: "They rebounded from losing this series ..."
    • "Game 1 featured a pitching duel that ended with a Yankees win under starting pitcher Herb Pennock." Duel with whom? Why not just: "After dueling with so-and-so, Yankees starting pitcher Herb Pennock led the team to a Game 1 victory." There is a lot of "game ended with", "series resulted in", and so on.
    • "In Game 4, Babe Ruth hit three home runs, a World Series record only equaled twice since: by Ruth in 1928 and Reggie Jackson in 1977." In the recaps for the first three games, you stated who won. Why not this one?
    • "The Yankees led the series 3–2, but Cardinals player-manager Rogers Hornsby chose Alexander as the starting pitcher in Game 6 and used him as a relief pitcher in Game 7." Why "but"? By using that word, you are suggesting that Hornsby chose Alexander despite the Yankees being ahead.. which doesn't make sense since Alexander won his other game.
    • "Game 7 went down to the wire as the Yankees entered the bottom of the ninth inning trailing 3–2." I don't know anything about baseball.. "bottom of the ninth inning"?
    • "Meusel swung and missed Alexander's pitch, and catcher Bob O'Farrell threw the ball to second baseman Rogers Hornsby ..." You just introduced Hornsby a few sentences ago - why restate his full name? --Laser brain (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Support Comments and questions I think I should have stuck to the lead! That was a lot of detail for a non-sports person like myself! :) Here are my comments and questions.

  • I do not know anything about baseball, so when I read this article I was genuinely confused most of the time. It is very hard to follow games in this much detail if one does not know much about a sport. I have no idea if this problem can be remedied or if it should be, but let me give some examples from "Game 1". Let me know if these problems arose from ignorance or colloquial writing:
  • Billy Southworth advanced Douthit to third base with a slow grounder to Yankees' second baseman Tony Lazzeri. - What is a slow grounder vs. a grounder?
  • The difference is speed. A grounder is a ball hit straight to the ground. It just rolls on the grass. Some balls move really slow (low momentum), so they are termed "slow grounders". Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cardinals' first baseman "Sunny Jim" Bottomley hit a bloop single - Is "bloop" a technical term?
  • With one out, Lou Gehrig came to the plate and grounded the ball to shortstop Tommy Thevenow, who flipped the ball to Hornsby - What does "flipped" mean?
  • Ruth lined a single past third baseman Les Bell. - Does this mean "hit along the line of the field"?
  • In the ninth inning, Jim Bottomley singled off Pennock. - What does "singled off" mean?
  • There seems to be excessive detail regarding the last game of the series in the last paragraph of the lead and it is written in a colloquial, sportscaster style.
  • Is no one else bothered by this? If not, I will strike the concern. Awadewit (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the 1926 World Series is most widely remembered for its dramatic conclusion. Given that this game is such a significant part of the subject, shouldn't it be covered in more detail in the lead? As far the sportscaster terms in that paragraph, I'll try to tone them down a bit. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the explanation - that makes sense. Awadewit (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with Laser brain above, that some of the writing can be smoothed out, but I should not attempt this as I am unfamiliar with the topic. Exs:
  • Meanwhile, in the National League, the Cardinals and the Reds continued to battle for first place in the league. - Why "meanwhile" (it sort sounds like "meanwhile, back at the ranch")?
  • the Reds embarked on a multi-game losing streak - Does a team really "embark" on a losing streak?
  • I read through parts of the article again and they read more smoothly after the recent copyediting. Awadewit (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also thought there would be ancillary information regarding the players and the series - is this remembered as an important series? If so, why? When is it referred to? What other series is it compared to? Perhaps because I am not a baseball fan, I was looking for other sorts of information about sports culture at the time and thought perhaps there could be more said about this. Perhaps this information is just not available? Sorry to be so vague! Awadewit (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Each series is unique, so I doubt there were any strong similarities with other World Series games. Unfortunately, I'm not sure of the availability of materials regarding sports culture during this era. It seems pretty tangential to the subject to be written about in this article. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comments pursuant to Awadewit's comments: My examples above were fixed but after reading the entire article, I'm really concerned about its accessibility. I'm thinking of how lost I've been reading rugby FACs from time to time. We can expect some foreknowledge; if people are truly lost, they should go read baseball first. But, we can make an effort to explain/link basic concepts and stifle the sportscaster lingo. Some examples:
    • The concept of stealing is never linked or explained.. "... and Lazzeri then attempted to steal home plate." Zoinks! Why would he do that?
    • I don't know if "top" and "bottom" of an inning is jargon.. I'd like to get some other opinions. Plenty of people don't know specialized terms like "port" and "starboard". "Beginning" and "end" for the masses?
    • Other puzzlers: "grounder", "popped up", "bloop single" (no idea), "grounded the ball", "flipped the ball", "groundout", "flied out", and so on. To be safe, I'd get a fresh pair of eyes on this just to go on a jargon hunt. --Laser brain (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I've just given it a copyedit, and will do another pass for jargon. It's easy to add wikilinks, but adding in-text explanations without ruining the patter of play-by-plays will be a challenge (I'm already bothered by 'the eighth inning' rather than just 'the eighth'). Nish, can you turn blooper (baseball) blue, and link to it from the pitiful blooper (disambiguation)? I'll work on jargon. Maralia (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To start, wikilinked stolen base, inning, grounder, pop, and bloop. Maralia (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copyedit and dejargonization, Maralia. Since I've been around baseball practically my whole life, it's difficult for me to take the perspective of a person unfamiliar with sports. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, honestly - it would have been tough, but Awadewit and Laser brain's lists helped clue me in to what people needed. I'll give it another readthrough today to see if I can smooth any more edges. Maralia (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm working through this now, but having a rough time. Would like to find a better section heading than "Background", and "led" or "led by" is used repetitively, need some variation there, and finding undefined jargon and terms still. Also, a lot of commas, I changed a couple to emdashes. Working on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have a look at my edit summaries; they are suggestions only (feel free to revert anything), but I'd like to see a bit more of this kind of tightening of the prose and defining of lingo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, primarily on jargon. I copyedited the season summary and half of the Game 1 recap to try to use regular words rather than sports terminology and then got tired.[39] I really think you need a non-baseball person to go through this more closely to reword some of the rest of it. I'm also not entirely happy with the organization.
    • I question the organization a bit. Why is the recap before the season summary (since the season happened before the world series)? I think I would combine the recap section with the Composite Box section as a Statistics section (or something like that) at the bottom of the article.
    • I really don't like that the section for each Game in the series starts with a fragment listing the date and place and then a stat box (that is not explained at all for people unfamiliar with baseball). The date/place should be covered in the prose, and I'd move the stat box lower in the section (or to a combined statistics section later). I checked other FAs on sports, and none seemed to begin a section this way.
    • I think the Aftermath section is probably unnecessary and could be removed.
    • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, quotations of under four lines should not be offset; they should be part of the paragraph.

Comments

- I've made a few minor copy edits as I've read through the article. A few areas I think require some clarification/improvement:

  • "....far surpassing his previous season record of 8–13 record with a 4.92 earned run average (ERA)."
  • Is that Rhem's record from the 1925 season (i.e., the previous season), or is that his previous best season?
  • .."who hit over .400 the season before.."
  • Consider wikilinking "batting average" to the number itself, as the link in the word "hit" might be misinterpreted as an unnecessary link to a common word rather than a special usage. Alternately, consider changing the wording to "...who had a batting average of .400..."
  • (from the quote at the bottom of the season summary: "There's no doubt in their doubt or in mine that the Yankees will win.[20]"
  • No doubt in their doubt? Possible copy-typing error.
  • "...gaining 16 wins and 12 losses."
  • Consider switching "gaining" with either attaining or earning
  • ..."hitting another grounder right, who threw it to first baseman Lou Gehrig..."
  • What is the name of the player who threw the ball to Gehrig? (I am trying very hard not to think of Abbott and Costello while reading this sentence.)
  • "...but was tagged out by Bell."
  • I think you need to wikilink "tagged out" to something, I'll let you figure out to what. (Note - this phrase appears multiple times, wikilink the first one)
  • "Thevenow had only two home runs in his career, both of which were inside-the-park and during the 1926 regular season."
  • Would this have been his third? Would it be more correct to say "Thevenow had only two other home runs..."?
  • "Both teams were held scoreless by the respective opposing pitchers until the fourth inning."
  • Consider simplifying to "Both teams were held scoreless until the fourth inning."
  • "...was called safe by the umpire."
  • Is there something you can wikilink "safe" to?
  • "Hoyt had thrice been part of New York Yankees teams that went to the World Series, and by the 1926 World Series, he had over 35 innings of pitching experience in the championship series."
  • This sentence feels awkward to me, perhaps because of the word "thrice". Does this work better:
"This was Hoyt's fourth [or is it third?] World Series with the New York Yankees, and he entered the 1926 Series with over...."
  • "...O'Farrell promptly tagged up ..."
  • Another wikilinking opportunity for "tagged up", especially as "tagged" to this point has referred to "tagging out".
  • "Ruth worked the count..."
  • Either wikilink or find a way to say this without jargon.
  • "...Pennock hit a line drive a double into left field ..."
  • Was it a line drive, a double, or a line drive double? (I wasn't sure so I didn't fix it.)
  • "...winning by a score of three to two."
  • Why is this the only score that is spelled out?

I can remember when the Series games were played during the day, and there was always someone at school who smuggled in a transistor radio to catch the scores; this article has a similar feel to it. I can see how a neophyte would have a challenge with some of the specialist vocabulary, but with a few more wikilinks I think most of the key terms will be covered. Risker (talk) 06:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose for now, just some quibbles and concerns about jargon.

Fine article, just some quibbles, mainly jargon. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start working on dejargonization soon. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! Baseball is so familiar to many U.S. readers that the jargon can be hard to spot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

}}

  • Comment – Is there a way to remove the picture-frame from the infobox and enter the image with a caption straight away, as in other infoboxes? The current effect of a frame within a frame looks strange and amateurish. Waltham, The Duke of 22:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:49, 24 June 2008 [40].

Draining and development of the Everglades[edit]

Though I wrote this third in order, this is the second article here at FAC that is a satellite for the Everglades article. I can't really say I had a lot of fun writing this one since the topic illustrates an apparently unstoppable avalanche of human folly, but I am confident in its content. I consider it an engaging history that has obvious current consequences, evidenced by the Restoration of the Everglades article that will be nominated here in due time. Thank you for reading it. Article creator, Moni3 (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Current ref #54 is dead. The rest of the links work according to the link checker tool. Also, I did quite a bit of copyediting to some sections of the article, so you might want to get some fresh eyes to take another look at the prose. Good work, overall. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I de-linked that citation. When you went through the prose, did you notice any recurring issue or problem I should look for? --Moni3 (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No real major or recurring problems, but just make sure commas are used in the right places, and numbers under 10 are spelled out, unless in a unit of measurement (not saying those problems still exist, but just what I fixed in a couple copyedits). Overall, though, the prose is excellent, especially for such a long article! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't you need a sentence introducing what/where the Everglades is? indopug (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not! (Actually, I can't determine if that's extraneous or not...) But I added it in the lead anyways. Thanks =) --Moni3 (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look fine, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, isn't that what I said already? :-) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with each reviewer telling me my sources are ok, along with anything else they determine to be ok. --Moni3 (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose, for now.

Some resolved issues — Bellhalla (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead needs some context for what the Everglades are. Also, that they are in the United States is never explicitly stated.
  • Per WP:CURRENCY, the dollar amounts can be noted by $; no need for USD$ since this is a U.S. topic
  • I keep looking at the sentence "Opinion about the value of Florida to the Union was mixed: some thought it a useless land of swamps and horrible animals, others as offered by God for national prosperity." Perhaps adding a while before others would make it more clear.
  • Use the "upright" image tag for portrait-format images per MOS:IMAGES
  • I have no idea what this sentence is trying to say: "The Civil War left debts from defaulted railroads that passed on to trustees of grant money allotted before the war to build rail lines and canals."
  • Was the IIF a governmental agency or a private endeavor?
  • In "Henry Flagler's railroads" section, it should be "the Styx", (comma after) rather than "the Styx," (comma inside)
  • There's an extra space in "…James O. Wright— an engineer…"
  • Since the city's name is "Fort Lauderdale", use that rather than the "Ft. Lauderdale" used within the article.
  • In the Harriet Beecher Stowe quote, are the parentheses around the t original or an editorial modification? If the latter, they should be square bracket ("[" and "]") rather than parentheses. Same goes for "(i)f we have a blow…" in "1926 Miami Hurricane" section
  • "Raccoons and otters were the most widely hunted for their skins." Swap raccoons and otters since the following sentences are in the opposite order of the current presented.
  • Some context for aigrettes, please. What are they?
  • "Many hunters refused to participate after watching the gruesome results of a plume hunt.[45][42]" Swap the notes so they are in numerical order.
  • "The winter months of 1922 were unseasonably wet as the region was underwater." Are you saying that it was unseasonably wet because the region was underwater? Or that it was unseasonably wet and as a result the region was underwater?
  • Because it sounds like a personal name, a qualifier ("the town of…" ) for Moore Haven in the "Hurricanes" section is in order.
  • No hyphen needed in hastily-built since hastily is an adverb
  • In section "1926 Miami Hurricane" make the link eye of the hurricane instead of just eye
  • "Lake Okeechobee levees crested only 18 inches…" In popular usage crested is often used for the peak stage of a flood, which makes this somewhat confusing in this case. I would recommend rephrasing like "The tops of the Lake Okeechobee levees were only 18 inches…"
  • "…a former editor from The Miami Herald…" why not of instead of from?
  • Uncited sentence: "It sold out of its first printing a month after its release."
  • WP:NPOV violation: "It produced a propaganda film called Waters of Destiny…" You need to explicitly state who called the film propaganda.
  • "By 1942, U.S. Sugar was indicted for peonage in federal court, thought the charges were eventually dismissed on a technicality." Should that be though rather than thought?
  • Two of the image captions have periods for non-sentences.
  • The final sentence is uncited. It also begs the question, why is it an international priority? Is there any discussion of it on an international basis in the article?
  • In the "Drainage" section there are several long quotes (4+ lines) that should be in quotes block quotes per MOS:QUOTE (corrected to what I meant to say.) — Bellhalla (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Sprague quote is 5 lines in my browser. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Florida "quickly" formed a committee after legislation in 1850, why would the Civil War and Reconstruction (10–20 years later) have anything to do with it?
    • "…Broward sold real estate developer Richard J. Bolles a million dollars worth of land in the Everglades…" change so that it's clear on first reading that Broward sold land (not Bolles)
    • "… Miami News-Record (which became The Miami Herald)…" Trivial information not relevant to this article. If it is relevant, just put a piped link (if it is correct; it is uncited and not clear from The Miami Herald article that it is.)
    • Who was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1910? The antecedent is not clear.
    • Is any reason given in sources for the burning of the pamphlets by Fort Lauderdale residents?
    • In "Herbert Hoover Dike" I've got text "sandwiching" between two images. (Using "upright" for the flood image on the right might remedy this.) More sandwiching in section "Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project"
    • "…jumped from 3,000–9,000 after World War II." Did the population go from 3,000 to 9,000, or did several towns increase by amounts ranging from 3,000 to 9,000?
    • "…when the city brought in an expert to explain why, he discovered that the water in the Everglades was the area's groundwater—here, it appeared on the surface." What is this trying to say?

    Prose needs some work before I can support. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Bellhalla and thank you for the comprehensive review.
      • In the 2nd paragraph in the lead, per Indopug's suggestion above, is: The Everglades are a part of a massive watershed that begins in around Orlando and drains into Lake Okeechobee, a vast and shallow lake. As the lake exceeds its capacity in the wet season, the water forms a flat and very wide river, approximately 100 miles (160 km) long, and 60 miles (97 km) wide. As the land from Lake Okeechobee slopes gradually to Florida Bay, water flows at a rate of half a mile a day. Prior to human action in the Everglades, the system comprised a third of the lower Florida peninsula. I hope this explains what the Everglades are.
        • My apologies. I began my review by looking at a version I had opened before that was added. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The USD was included per the suggestion of another editor, but I have removed it.
      • Per the MoS section on blockquotes, they are not enclosed in quotation marks.
        • I failed to proofread my objection. I meant to say that there were several 4+ line quotes that should be block quotes. I have revised my comment above. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think the information about The Miami Herald is trivial. The Miami Herald has long been an influential publication, and got an early start opposing drainage projects - one of the few voices in Miami that expressed such an opinion. What are you asking me to cite about the transition?
        • If you think it's relevant to the article that's fine by me. However, there's nothing in The Miami Herald WP article or the Herald's own website (upon which the WP article is apparently based) about operating under the Miami News-Record name (which certainly does not preclude that fact). One point of potential confusion comes from the WP article which gives the Miami News (not sure if it's the same entity or not) as the Herald's longest competitor. Given that the previous name is not obvious or general knowledge, that fact should be cited. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fort Lauderdale looks rather odd. I think it's never printed this way, but I changed it.
      • I'm unfamiliar with the upright tag on images, so I have to play with that a little bit. I'll work on it, though. Done.
      • In the 1970s, the Everglades were declared a World Heritage Site, a Wetland of International Importance, and an International Biosphere Reserve. I can add that to the final sentence, or take it out completely.
        • If you think it's relevant to the current article, then by all means add it for comprehensiveness. I guess what I'm trying to say it that there's essentially nothing said about any sort of international action or reaction throughout the whole article until this sentence. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've addressed your specific concerns, I hope, to your satisfaction. I am unable to address "prose needs some work", but I will do my best. --Moni3 (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "prose needs some work" was a general summation of what I had found. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Belhalla, I left one portrait image without an upright tag: Image:Florida Topo map with canals and designated Everglades areas.jpg. I saw that you added the tag to it, but I feel that this one needs to stay at its original size. The detail is too small to make any sense of, and the image is integral to understanding how the Everglades were divided, and consequently, how those divisions adversely affected the environment and diminished quality of life for South Florida residents. I hope you don't anticipate an oppose based on that. --Moni3 (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know the rationale behind not adding the tag to that image. Not having the tag will not prevent a support from me one once the other issues are addressed. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My replies interspersed above. (Please feel free to do the same to respond.) — Bellhalla (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Heh. I was under the impression that The Miami Herald's rival was The Miami Metropolis. The source I'm using states what's in the article. I placed a call into the Herald to solve this mystery. --Moni3 (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I will concede there's probably another source somewhere that says something different, I think this is a good one: After ten years of struggling as an attorney (my father) took an old flatbed press as a bad debt, put it on the railroad, came to Miami and started the first morning paper called the News Record. That was 1906...After father incurred the enmity of the governor (by opposing drainage), the newspaper almost went into bankruptcy. But then Frank Shutts came along and rescued it. Shutts had set up a leading law firm in Miami and then got interested in the newspaper. He put some money into it and became the publisher, and he an my father reorganized it as the Miami Herald in 1910. - Marjory Stoneman Douglas in Voice of the River, pp. 98-99. --Moni3 (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That sound like a good source to me. How about saying it was a "forerunner of The Miami Herald"? — Bellhalla (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    DONE. --Moni3 (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments (by Dank55) Although I'm supposed to have worked on this article for the FA-Team, fortunately for the editors, I was slack and didn't, so I get to review it :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dank55 (talk • contribs) 20:39, June 19, 2008

    • Websters and AMHER don't like "toward the later part of the 19th century". Websters doesn't list "later" as an adjective at all, meaning they don't think it's common enough to mention, and AMHER says that "later" means "after a previous event", not "in the second half", and "toward a time after a previous event" is not the meaning you're going for here. I changed to "latter".
    • I get 9K hits for "lack of an understanding" and 3M hits for "lack of understanding". I'll go with "lack of understanding", if that's okay.
    • Dashes don't work when they get in the way of a required comma;
    • I would be happier with "following a proposal to construct a massive jetport" than "following the proposed construction of a massive jetport", but I didn't change it.
    • I disagree with the comment above that "which became The Miami Herald" is too trivial to include; it's a very important newspaper, both regionally and especially in an article about the Everglades.
    • "Americans began their relationship with the Everglades" [slightly funky] -> "American involvement in the Everglades began"
    • Funky, indeed. There's no need to justify what you're doing. Go ahead and make the grammatical changes you see necessary. I'm watching. If you compromise accuracy, or change the meaning of what I intended the sentence to say, I'll let you know. I appreciate your efforts, Dank55. --Moni3 (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Moni, that makes it easier. If it's okay, I will continue to give detailed edit summaries; for one thing, I'm on Editor Review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dank55 (talk • contribs) 02:05, June 20, 2008
    • I don't know what it means to "die ... from constantly being wet". Pneumonia?
    Gangrene from fungal infections, cracked skin, feet, etc. --Moni3 (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would improve the encyclopedia to say what they died from, but not if it's hard to find out. If all you know is that they died from being wet, then that's fine with me. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been expanded, I hope to your satisfaction. --Moni3 (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not a fan of "died in his tracks", but it's a judgment call. (I'd prefer "in the field", "on the trail", or wherever it was he died.)
    He died in the mud where he stood. Suggestions? --Moni3 (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the Kissimmee valley, which is the source of all the evil". Just like today... [for those who haven't had the pleasure of spending most of their holiday waiting in lines with 1000 screaming kids...screaming because it's 100 F/38 C and 100% humidity...I'm referring to Walt Disney World].
    • I'd prefer "frenzy of speculation" to "near frenzy of speculation", but I didn't make the change
    • This sentence is a little hard to read and I'm not sure what it's saying: "His most fundamental mistake, however, was that he calculated the average bimonthly rainfall for July and August, and thus what the canals should be constructed to hold, was 4 inches (10 cm) of water a day, despite..." Would this work? "His most fundamental mistake, however, was designing the canals for a maximum rainfall of 4 inches (10 cm) of water a day, based on flawed data for July and August rainfall, despite..."
    • "Whereas advertisements promised within eight weeks of arrival a farmer could be making a living, for many it took at least two months to clear the land." What was it a farmer was supposed to be doing after 8 weeks, selling crops he had grown in that time? If so, I'd prefer something like, "Advertisements promised land that was ready to farm, but for many..."
    • Compromised a little on this one. My comment. --Moni3 (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you really be "swarmed with...skinks"? Skinks are cute little lizards, about 3 inches long, that eat spiders, insects and worms. They can swarm all they like as far as I'm concerned. It seems a little non-parallel to group them with mosquitoes (deadly at the time), snakes (Florida has several poisonous varieties) and alligators.
    • (Done, although you can re-insert if you're skinkophobic.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dank55 (talk • contribs) 03:39, June 20, 2008
    I think I'll put this one back in. I think skinks are kinda cute too, but I know grown women who will turn into complete 3-year-olds upon the sight of an anole, gecko, or lizard. I suppose if you're not used to them, they can freak you out. And there are a couple poisonous skinks. My brother's cat ate one, and she survived it, but it gave her some nerve damage. She careens around the house drunkenly and croaks instead of meows. --Moni3 (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd recommend breaking the paragraph that begins "Wading birds were a particular target" into 2 paragraphs, although I'm not sure how you might want to split it up. You write "Plume harvesting became a dangerous business", but it was the warden that got shot.
    Done. Though the paragraph is about Guy Bradley, hunters often took shots at each other. I can add that in. (Sign your comments lest you incur the wrath of SandyGeorgia. Be afraid.) --Moni3 (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously. Dank55, please sign your entries. Mm40, please thread your comments and don't alter someone else's entries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the U.S. military's" – first mention of "U.S." should be expanded to United States.
    • Perhaps crop the satellite photos so the surrounding text in the image is removed, since it cannot be read at all, anyways, and is therefore not useful to the reader.
    Am I allowed to crop a USGS public domain photo? --Moni3 (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Most U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) information resides in the public domain and may be used without restriction... Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gary King (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    DONE. --Moni3 (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support When I started reading this article, I took of a bit of a gulp, I mean "draining and development"? How interesting could that be? However, Moni3 has made this article both interesting and informative. I really do feel as if I understand the general history of the what has happened to the Everglades (and really, I'm shocked!). I kept stopping and insisting my roommate listen to parts of the article. I copyedited a bit while I was reading and more has been done, so I think any little infelicities have been cleaned up. Most importantly, this is an engaging and interesting article. The article seems comprehensive and well-researched to me (but I am no expert in this area) and the images are well-chosen and to the best of my knowledge are fully licensed. Thanks for this wonderful series! Awadewit (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Awadewit. I thought it imprudent to name the article "Complete land rape of South Florida", but I suppose that would be more effective at drawing in readers. Though if you and others think that would be better, I can move it... Just let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You should definitely rename it - with several footnotes in the title to reassure readers it is sourced! :) Awadewit (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Might not be NPOV, but it would certainly be accurate… — Bellhalla (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support looks good. I could only find some tiny quibbles below: Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    before Florida was a state - just sorta sticks there. is this important? better now, funny how one simple word just smoothes things nicely.
    prolonging the war further. - should there be an 'any' before the 'further', in fact, do we need the 'further' at all?
    (When the U.S. military was not victorious), the final blame for the stalemate lay not in military preparation, supplies, leadership, or superior tactics by the Seminoles, but in Florida's impenetrable terrain. - could actually delete the bit in parentheses and place 'military' before 'stalemate'. Do you think meaning is preserved?
    I changed was to became, but I think Florida should be mentioned in the first sentence for those who are not aware of where the Everglades are located. Living in Florida, it seems that everyone knows where they are, but I thought it best to be safe.
    Further dropped.
    Sentences about military stalemate changed. Thank you, Casliber. --Moni3 (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I had some minor issues that I fixed , (see article history), or raised on the the article's discussion page. My support is based on criterion 1, as most of what I read was new and fascinating. GrahamColmTalk 16:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I'm sure I could find a few nit-picky things to complain about, but nothing major and restrictive. Excellent prose flow, good content, nice images, and I can't imagine it's not comprehensive with all the information. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, a splendid article. (Yes, there are nits, but I'm picking some of them, and anyway they're mere nits.) Morenoodles (talk) 12:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 23 June 2008 [41].

    Georgette Heyer[edit]

    Self-nomination. This is the first article I've nominated that has nothing to do with the U.S. state of Texas, and the first discussing an author. Georgette Heyer was a popular author through much of the 20th century, but she was extremely publicity-shy and never gave an interview. Because she wrote genre fiction (primarily romance novels), her work was not often thoroughly reviewed. I've consulted the only biography of her that have been written as well as a compilation of articles and reviews of her works as a whole. I've not had a lot of luck finding good sources beyond those. The article is currently GA (reviewed by Wassupwestcoast) and has been reviewed and copyedited by Scartol. Karanacs (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved issues — Bellhalla (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Some minor comments:

    • In the lead there's no explanation of what her magnum opus was. Also, why is it in quotes here, and in the image caption later?
    • Wikilink for heart attack?
    • The year is somewhat redundant for her marriage date, since it was mentioned in the previous sentence.
    • Are At Work and In my Old World Garden capitalized in the source?
    • Use "upright" in portrait-orientation images rather than hard-coded sizes.
    • Perhaps some alternation in the image placement? All are on the right currently.
    • "London season" is wikilinked within a quote, which should be avoided per MoS
    • Encyclopædia Britannica should be in italics as the title of a work
    • The nested parentheses in the last image caption are unsightly. Can the caption be recast?

    — Bellhalla (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your comments, especially the excellent suggestion about "upright" for the images (I did not know that existed). I've made changes to the article in response to your comments. For the things I couldn't change:
    • "magnum opus" was in quotes because that was how she referred to the work. I did add more information about the work itself
    • The funky capitalization in the quotation follows Heyer's original writings.
    • I couldn't find another way to incorporate London season into the prose other than the quotation. I suspect many people are unfamiliar with the term and wanted to give them the wikilink anyway.
    Karanacs (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I figured the "magnum opus" and the capitalization were per the sources. The London season link is fine if there's not a better way. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ACK! My poor eyes...I can't look ;) Karanacs (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC) For those not from Texas, Belhalla has used the color of my school's arch enemy. [reply]
    • Comments Sources look good, links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support What a wonderful article! A thorough explanation of a writer who has not received much attention from my scholarly fellows but who has been quite popular. This article is well-researched, comprehensive, and well-written. The reader understands who Georgette Heyer was and what kind of a writer she was.

    • Shouldn't the lead image be on the left since she is looking right per WP:MOS#Images?
    • The first alleged plagiarist published a new novel in 1974 - This is slightly confusing.
    • When I removed a sentence, I messed up your notes - sorry! Note 2 now reads as invalid.
    • Is the "List of works" complete or should it be labeled a "Selected list of works"?

    What an enjoyable read! Thanks Karanacs! Awadewit (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I took a closer look at WP:MOS#Images, and it does say Start an article with a right-aligned lead image. If you think it is an issue I can take the picture out of the infobox and put it later in the article.
    • I rearranged the section on the alleged plagiarism, so now all of the information about the first author is in one paragraph. This is a bit out of chronological order but makes more sense (I hope).
    • I have fixed the reference. (Thank you for your bit of copyediting.)
    • I believe the list of works is complete. Karanacs (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As usual, the MOS is squishy! It really depends what is more important to you - placement of images so that the eyes don't wander off the page really bugs me, so I prioritize that rule. Other people prioritize the "right-aligned image for lead" rule, but you see how they can come into conflict. Moving the image to the left would also get rid of the unsightly infobox. :) Do whatever you think is best. Awadewit (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tentative support. Prose seems quite good, but ...

    • Linking needs a full audit. Overlinked: mining, heart attack, liability, among quite a few others (I see "romance novels" repeat-linked); "sign posts" is a trivial link, but "costumes" is piped to a period-specific link, which is valuable. "Snuff boxes" is piped to "Decorative boxes"—unsure that this is helpful and not misleading. I'd just delink it. You might also consider rendering Paris, France as just "Paris", since who would assume it wasn't that Paris, and if a reader needs to hit a link to discover where the hell Paris is, they should be shot and buried. There are valuable links: let's not dilute them and splash ugly bright-blue everywhere without good reason.
    • "She was named for her father"—odd expression. TONY (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing out the linking issues. I've done an audit of the links and removed quite a few, including many I realized were double or triple linked. Of the ones you specifically mentioned, I removed sign posts but left the link to snuff boxes. It actually goes to Decorative_boxes#Snuff_box, which describes exactly what Heyer was researching. I'm also leaving Paris linked (I could mean Paris, Texas, you know ;)), because the other cities mentioned in the article are linked as well. Thanks for the review! Karanacs (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments I caught a handful of copyedit issues. A few others:

    • Suggest linking limited liability company.
    • You seem to waver on the issue of serial commas. I couldn't determine whether you meant to use them or not, but you've not been consistent.
    • Two images (the Duke of Wellington and the Lancaster coat of arms) - break the subsequent section headers for me. I don't expect everything to be optimized for widescreen, but it looks like each of those images could be moved up a paragraph to avoid this.
    • Is there a reason some of the novels are listed out of chronological order in the Romance list?

    Thanks for an interesting read - I certainly never would have heard of her otherwise. Maralia (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Maralia, I've made some adjustments to the images. Can you please see if that has fixed the problems you saw? I've also reordered the chronology on the books, and I've audited for commas - I think I've caught most of the issues. Karanacs (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments from Dr pda:
      • If the image as mentioned above is a problem, you could always flip it so Georgette is facing the other way :)
      • Macedonia (in the first para) and Jacobites (Marriage, fourth para) link to disambiguation pages
      • Heyer refused to file a lawsuit against the suspected literary thieves - This makes it sound as though there was only one occasion (a single lawsuit), and also that Heyer did not take (or want to take) any action against them, when the Imitators section describes otherwise.
      • Her brother is first referred to as George Boris, but later only as Boris. Would it be worthwhile inserting (known as Boris) after the first occurrence?
      • they were engaged (Marriage, first para). Sounds like someone else engaged them. Became engaged perhaps?
      • Why did Heyer assume financial responsibility for her brothers? Was her mother not still alive?
      • October 1825. Should be 1925
      • The article says the Regency lasted from 1810 to 1820, but British Regency says 1811 to 1820
      • Two sentences later Her Regencies were inspired... sounds a little strange, since we've just had Regency used in the literal sense. Regency as a noun to mean Regency romance also seems a little colloquial to me.
      • her first novel of historical fiction, meaning it gave a fictionalized account of the life of a real person. Historical fiction is not necessarily just a fictionalised biography (of a single person). Also meaning it gave sounds a little too 'dumbed-down', for lack of a better phrase.
      • Also, is -ize US or UK English? (I can never remember) The article consistently uses -ize, though it is about a British subject.
      • so to alleviate Rougier's difficult commute - this sounds like the commute was intrinsically difficult (which is the opposite of what we are told two paragraphs earlier), rather than the result of the Blitz
      • The caption following the coat of arms should identify the arms as being those of John of Lancaster. The caption for the picture of Wellington should possibly have (pictured) too.
      • Richard and Flint raised her two sons... the mixture of first name and surname is a little awkward
      • The 1974 edition ... included ... does not mention - tenses should be consistent. Also, is she in the later editions of the Britannica?
      • Ref 26 doesn't end in a period, ref 37 should be pp, ref 73 should use an ndash since the pages are consecutive, ditto in ref 81
      • The ISBN for Hodge, and the two books in Further reading are hyphenated, but all the rest are not
      • Saraland, AL, for the publication location for Fahnestock-Thomas, but Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for Regis. A minor point perhaps, but using the abbreviation for the state would make them consistent, especially since many of the other references are in Fahnestock-Thomas. Also Philadelphia is linked but Saraland isn't.
    • Apart from these, which are all minor points, it's a very nice article. Dr pda (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, I am impressed with the level of detail! I believe I've fixed all of the issues with the following exceptions:
    • Why did Heyer assume financial responsibility for her brothers? Was her mother not still alive? - Her mother, like most women of the day, did not work. My assumption from reading the sources was that as Heyer was the only one actually making money at the time of her father's death she just kept doing so. I didn't think that worked into the article well and left it out. Do you think it really needs to be there?
    • -ize can be used for British spelling, although -ise is more common.
    • The online version of the Britannica does not have an article on Heyer. I'm unsure how to source an omission (the one named in the article was mentioned in another source) like that.
    Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good now. Re the Britannica I was more thinking that if she was now included it would be worth a mention, but as you say it's hard to prove a negative. (I notice she gets a passing mention under Novel in the online version now.) Re financial responsiblity I think the reason that stood out was because it struck me as unusual for a woman to do so. Also did Heyer then take financial responsibility for her mother as well, if she wasn't earning (though I suppose she could have had some sort of investment/inheritance)?
    One other point which I forgot to raise last time: In the second-to-last paragraph of Financial problems it says that Heyer fired her accountants in 1966 and decided to end Heron Enterprises, but the next paragraph begins with her new accountants urging her to abandon the company. When did she decide to end it? Dr pda (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 23 June 2008 [42].

    Angus Lewis Macdonald[edit]

    Self-nominator. I'm nominating this article for Featured Article status because I feel it meets the criteria and the editor who conferred Good Article status encouraged me to submit it. Bwark (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I suggest linking dates like "August 10, 1890" so they are formatted according to user preferences. Gary King (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • There is no requirement to link dates; as long as date linking and raw formatting of dates is internally consistent the article complies with MoS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, given the nitpicky nature of the following:
    Resolved nitpicks from Kakofonous (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prose is quite excellent throughout, especially in the lead, except for the second paragraph of the "Early life and education" section. This bit is awash with repetition and rather choppy sentences; surely it could be spiced up a smidgen…
    I've reworked the paragraph to improve the flow and eliminate needless repetition. Bwark (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Some considered him the best professor in the law school." Who is "some"?
    I've eliminated this vague sentence. Bwark (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please check WP:MOSQUOTE; I see some issues with logical quotation throughout. This is one example: "He deplored what he called 'the loss of responsible government.'" Since the quoted phrase "the loss of responsible government" is not a full sentence in itself, the ending quotation mark should go outside the period.
    I've fixed the punctuation in this example and will recheck all quotations to make sure they conform to MOS. Bwark (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "…Macdonald kept a key Liberal promise by bringing in Old Age Pensions for elderly people in need." Why capitalize "old age pensions"? The link and article do not.
    I've removed the capital letters. Bwark (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He oversaw a massive increase in Canada's naval forces; played a key role in a political crisis that threatened to tear the Liberal government and the country apart and incurred the wrath of Mackenzie King, a political leader whom Macdonald grew to loathe." Awkward sentence—semicolon is odd here. I would suggest splitting the sentence, long as it is.
    I've split the sentence up to make it more readable.Bwark (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    --Kakofonous (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for these comments. They are very helpful. Bwark (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Current ref 32 "Se History of Federal RIdings" ... the publisher is given in the title (should be separate) and there is no last access date.
    I think I've fixed this by using the cite web template. I actually copied the format from citation #5 from the article on Thomas Jefferson. I hope the citation now conforms to Wikipedia MOS. Bwark (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've eliminated this external link because I don't think it adds much if anything to the article. Bwark (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Otherwise sources look okay, and web links checked out with the link checker tool. Full disclosure, I'm the GA reviewer who encouraged the main editor to bring this to FAC. I'll try to get back to this shortly for a full reveiw. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Leaning support few picky prose issues (again, i know!)

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 19:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Legal studies. The second paragraph, the connections between the sentences sometimes are a bit choppy, especially between the second and third sentence and third and fourth sentence. I'm not sure what the bit about the Harvard faculty has to do with the rest
    I think I've fixed these problems. Bwark (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any chance of combining the Legal studies and Professor of law sections? Chronologically they jump around, you might just combine them with the Civil service section and call it "Life before politics"?
    I've created a new section "Life before politics" that is more chronologically sound. Bwark (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • War service section, probably don't need to say "his own brother", "His brother" would do just as well.
    I've eliminated that sentence. Bwark (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same section I think there is a punctuation error in the third sentence, shouldn't it be a comma after Highlanders and before leaving?
    I've added the comma. Bwark (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Early life and education section, the second paragraph, the fourth sentence seems choppy and unclear to me. I think it's the "even then" that throws me off.
    I've eliminated the "even then" phrasing. Bwark (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Provincial convention subsection, third paragraph, I suggest changing "delegates were to choose the party's new leader" to "delegates chose the party's new leader"
    I've made a change to make this sentence more readable, but have still tried to preserve the chronology. Bwark (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same section, sentence starting "there was little enthusiasm..." I think there should be a comma in front of however?
    I've added the comma. Bwark (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Liberal party leader, first paragraph, first sentence suggest removing the "to" before organize.
    I've removed the unnecessary word. Bwark (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Provincial premier section, I know you wikilinked CCF, but might spell it out for us non-Canadians? I assume it's a political party that isn't a Liberal and isn't a Conservative?
    I've added the party's full name and identified it as socialist. Bwark (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aftermath section, first sentence, suggest changing to "sudden death proved disasterous"
    I've fixed this. Bwark (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just some small issues and suggestions. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much for all these suggestions. They are a big help. Bwark (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I looked over this article's images in April and they generally appear to be in order. I did apparently miss one thing: Image:ForrestBuilding MS-Ref 3.14.jpg is basing the PD claim on the criterion of publication before 1950. Only comments regarding date of creation, however, are present. Do we have a source that confirms publication before 1950? Alternatively, the image indicates permission to use this image was granted 1.24.2008; if the University has released the image to us with a compatible license, we needn't worry about PD. Would it be possible to file that permission with an OTRS ticket? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per this explanation, the University would not be considered a "state entity" and, thus, not subject to crown copyright. Thusly, creation (not publication) would indeed be the criterion. Concern so stricken. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - very well-written. — maclean 19:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 23 June 2008 [43].

    Talyllyn Railway[edit]

    Nominator(s): User:ChrisTheDude, User:Tivedshambo, User:Gwernol
    previous FAC (00:11, 14 April 2008)

    I just stumbled across this article after visiting the railway on holiday with my son, who's a big steam fan, and taking a picture which I thought could be added to WP. When I saw the quality of the article (and the existing pictures, which were much better than mine!) and that it had narrowly missed out on FA once before, I thought I'd give it a helping hand so have gone through and given it a pretty ruthless copy edit, which I think now brings it up to FA standard. I await your comments...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Co-nominators: User:Tivedshambo and User:Gwernol.[reply]

    Articlestats:

    Gwernol 377
    Tivedshambo 205
    Jotel 52
    ChrisTheDude 46

    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nomination query resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are Gwernol and Tivedshambo co-nominators? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They've both stated that they support my action in nominating the article, does that fit the definition of "co-nominators".....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll stand as co-nominator of the article. I nominated it the first time we tried for FA status a couple of months ago. I believe Chris' copy edits have significantly improved the readability and flow of the article, which was perhaps the most significant reason it fell short last time. I believe Talyllyn Railway is now a viable FA candidate and would love to hear further opinions of reviewers. Thanks, Gwernol 14:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When principle editors are involved in the FAC and helping respond to FAC queries, they are typically listed in the opening paragraph as co-nominators. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I'm also happy to add my support as co-nominator. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 14:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note; This nomination doesn't appear to have been discussed on article talk or with the principle contributors, Tivedshambo (talk · contribs) and Gwernol (talk · contribs). If they aren't ready, it should be withdrawn; please see the instructions at the top of WP:FAC.

    Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination.

    I can't speak for Gwernol, but personally I am pleased that this article has been improved and nominated, and I sincerely hope this nomination is not withdrawn, simply because of a mere technical error in the procedure. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I genuinely was not aware that I needed to discuss the nomination before making it, I've never previously nominated an article for which I wasn't the principal/sole contributor. Tivedshambo appears to be OK with it, and Gwernol has posted on my talk page thanking me for my work on it, but I will ask him/her to post here confirming that he/she is also happy for the FAC to proceed...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy for the FAC to continue. Although I haven't edited the article in a month or so, I have been reviewing Chris' edits and it was clear that he intended to resubmit the article. If I hadn't thought the article was ready to try again, I'd have discussed this with Chris. His recent improvements have considerably improved the quality of article and I think it is now much closer to featured quality. Gwernol 09:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • "The line in fiction" → "In fiction" perhaps?

    Gary King (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    done —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    • All the images are right-aligned, to prevent cramming it might be best to prune a few and align some to the left. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have moved some of the images about, hopefully it now looks more aesthetically pleasing ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Current ref 85 Matthew Hawkins Cultural Perceptions.. is lacking a last access date.
    otherwise sources look good. Link checker tool says all the websites work. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I peer reviewed this and just reread it (and just peer reviewed the related List of stations and halts on the Talyllyn Railway). I find it to meet the FA criteria. My only comment is that there are slight discrepancies between the distances in the list and those in this article. Is the line 7.35 miles (11.83 km) long (per the list table) or 7.25 miles (11.67 km) per the lead of this article? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed - thanks for spotting that, the correct length is 7.25 miles. The lead has Boyd as a source for this, and I've confirmed it in Mitchell and Eyres, so I updated the List article with source. Best, Gwernol 03:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support COI - I did the GA review for this article. It appears to have been significantly improved since then. Three minor points: 8,000 tons has no conversion, 4,000 tonnes is a different unit and no conversion, and there are too many howevers for my taste. Pob lwc, y Ddraig Goch ddyry gychwyn jimfbleak (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed Thanks Jim, I've updated the unit measurements to use the convert template, which provides metric equivalents. The "tonnes" was a typo, though given the (non) accuracy of the measurement in the original source it has little practical impact :-) I've also removed a few of the "howevers" which does improve the flow of the prose, without impacting the meaning. Hwyl, Gwernol 12:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prose looks alright. Pity about the messy left-side images. TONY (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Question about images Could you provide more details for the source "Talyllyn Century, by J.I.C. Boyd" that is listed on many of the image pages? Is this a book? If so, could you please list the publication information, etc.? Also, the license listed for all of these Boyd images is "PD" because the life of the author plus seventy years has expired. However, since the author is unknown on all of them and since for a few of them it is unfortunately mathematically possible that the person could have lived long enough that the seventy years are not up, I don't think this license can be used for all of them. (I am slowly learning all of the ins and outs of these rules, so please correct me if I am wrong.) Awadewit (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Image:Tal-Y-Llyn Dolgoch Abergwynolwn 1951.jpg - Is there a known author and date for this image? It seems like there might be more information, according to the accompanying documentation. If so, please fill out summary information for the image. Thanks!
    On this specific image - I've searched through my library and can't find this exact photo anywhere. The original website has no more details that I can find, so I think we're stuck with what we have on this one - no author and a date of 1951. Gwernol 18:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. I filled in the image summary as such. Awadewit (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Awadewit. Yes, Talyllyn Century is a book - its one of the sources for the article. I'll happily update the images with a full citation, that's a good idea. On the question of public domain, some of these images may be in a gray area. Are there specific ones you believe are not public domain? Thanks, Gwernol 13:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is we don't really know, since we don't know the artist. I was then asking myself, "are we supposed to be lenient or not here?" and I assume we are not because copyright is important. Assuming the photographer was 20 years old and lived to be 80, the following images would not be in the public domain (this is not totally unreasonable, in my view):

    Can you use the the "published before 1923" license for some of these? Please note that I'm not trying to strip the article of images - I'm just trying to find the right licenses for them. :) Awadewit (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Perhaps someday we will find more details or eventually we can add it back in, after several more years have passed. :) (Note to self in the future!) Awadewit (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:DolgochStation1894.jpg, this was taken by one "H.S. Bristowe". Unfortunately I can't yet establish a definitive date of death for Mr. Bristowe. It probably couldn't by licensed under Template:PD-US-1923-abroad since I don't know when it was first published outside the US, and its likely that it wouldn't have been published in the US before 1923. However, I believe this is likely still public domain, but we may need to remove this one too?
    • Are there people on Wikipedia who try to find this information? I thought there were. Is this picture important enough that we should hunt them down? Awadewit (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent! Awadewit (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitely appreciate you bringing up these issues. I want to get them right too. Best, Gwernol 14:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've replaced the 1894 image of Dolgoch station with one I took in 2006, which I have released under the GNU Free Documentation license. The 1894 picture was mainly illustrative of the station, so the modern image is as good for that purpose. I hope to eventually be able to establish that the 1894 image is public domain or otherwise usable, but I agree that until then it should be removed from the article. Thanks again for your vigilence, Gwernol 15:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Leaning towards support I've now read the article and it is well-written, interesting, and comprehensive. There were so many fascinating tidbits weaved through the article and everything was explained very well. I just have one question:

    • Cozens, Lewis (1948). The Tal-y-llyn Railway. author. - What does this mean?

    I will change to "support" just as soon as we finish up all of the image issues above. Awadewit (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cozens self-published his book back in 1948. This was before there was a large market for books on narrow gauge railways, or publishers willing to publish them. Usually self-published books are not reliable sources, but in this case, Cozens is an acknowledged expert in the field and his works, especially those on the Talyllyn and Corris railways are important historical works that have been subsequently reprinted and widely referenced, so I believe this is an acceptable exception. Best, Gwernol 15:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see - he has published other works on the subject - I believe that meets WP:SPS. However, could we somehow make the actual reference itself a little clearer? I found it confusing. This article is using Chicago style, so I checked my Chicago MOS and I believe it should say "Privately printed" instead of "author". Awadewit (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed, thanks. Gwernol 18:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Woodcock, G. George (September 1938). "The Tal-y-llyn Railway". Railway Magazine 83. - Do we have page numbers for this article?
    Yes, I have a copy of this issue of Railway Magazine - details updated. Gwernol 18:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:07, 22 June 2008 [44].

    Tawny Owl[edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's passed GA, so onwards and hopefully upwards. Contributions 187/455 edits jimfbleak (talk) 06:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments (must be bird morning...)

    • Can we put Wordsworth and Coleridge last name first in the references?
    Otherwise sources look good. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    oops, silly missing that, done now jimfbleak (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, no problem. That's why it is good to have others look at articles, fresh eyes help a bunch. All done! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved comments from Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
    • In the image caption in the infobox, is there any way of verifying that the picture is of a Strix aluco aluco?
    • Good to see non-breaking spaces :)
    • Roosting owls may be discovered and "mobbed" by small birds during the day, but they normally just sit tight when this happens. "sit tight" is unencyclopediac language.
    • Since its flight is silent, it may not be detected until it is too late to avoid the danger." Should be "becaues its flight".
    • The bit about the man that died in a cage seems irrelevant to the article.
    • The juvenile survival rate is unknown, but the annual survival rate for adults is 76.8%. Replace "but" with "altough".
    • Even John Ruskin is quoted as saying "Whatever wise people may say of them, I at least have found the owl's cry always prophetic of mischief to me." The period should go after the quotation mark, per MoS.
    • It was hard for me to find things to comment on. Good work! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    reply With regard to subspecies, it's not possible to be sure without measurements. I've taken out the Russian bit, I had doubts about that myself. Other points fixed, thanks for comments jimfbleak(talk) 15:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    reply I didn't realise, that done now, also picked up a full stop that should have been a comma as a bonus. Thanks jimfbleak (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (moral or otherwise) Comments ok, let's get started...

    but in more urban areas its diet includes a higher proportion of birds. - an 'although' would be softer and more appropriate as not a huge contrast.

    ::Its night hunting is aided by vision and hearing adaptations and a silent flight. - a silent flight? should the indefinite article be removed?

    ::Tawny is capable of killing smaller owls, but may itself be killed by the Eagle Owl or Northern Goshawk,... - there are 2 kills here, would it be worth changing one to 'prey upon/hunt/catch' or something else?

    ::The nominate race has two upperpart plumage colour morphs, rufous brown and greyish brown, together with intermediate forms, and its underparts are whitish and streaked with brown. - Reads a little ungainly for me, I may split it thus: "The nominate race has two colour morphs which differ in their upperpart plumage, one rufous brown and the other greyish brown, although intermediate forms are seen. The underparts (of both forms) are whitish and streaked with brown." - bracketed bit optional. Or have a play with it some other way.

    The Tawny Owl has a direct flight... erm, what's a direct flight? I guess it means flying in a straight line. Is there another way of saying this? (not a deal-breaker)

    The owl's actual visual acuity is only slightly higher than that of man, --> greater?

    ::brown birds predominate in humid western Europe --> stick a 'more' infront of the humid to indicate it is relative. Europe does not strike me as humid compared with, say, the Amazon really.

    ::In the Taxonomy section, some ssp are bracketed while others aren't. Is this a typo or can it be explained?

    The typical lifespan is five years,[3] but an age of over eighteen years has been recorded for a wild Tawny Owl, and of over 27 years for a captive bird. - aha, the old numbers-as-letters conundrum. I'd have 'em all as digits I think.

    Nearly there. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All done, thanks particularly for the plumage suggestion. I've amended the table caption to explain the (), not sure if this is the best way jimfbleak (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with comments (nothing deal breaking). Disclaimer, WP:BIRD vote, but I've had nothing to do with this article.
    The Tawny Owl has a distribution stretching across temperate Eurasia from Great Britain and the Iberian Peninsula eastwards to Korea, - this should read has a discontinuous or disjunct distribution stretching... as the sentence reads like there is continuous band of them from sea to shining sea.
    Behaviour most of the information in behaviour can go into breeding - nest defence and lifelong breeding pairs.
    Good stuff though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, followed suggestions, I had wondered about merging the behaviour bit jimfbleak (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:07, 22 June 2008 [45].

    Battle of Lissa (1811)[edit]

    Self-nomination. An article on a little known naval action from 1811, I believe this is adequately sourced, well written and conforms to all other FAC criteria. It has passed for GA and undergone a Wikiproject peer review which generated a lot of comments. Any and all actionable suggestions welcome.Jackyd101 (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: The article now has an excellent map created by User:Ruhrfisch.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Gary King (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alphabetize References section per WP:CITE
    Done
    • "The French invasion force under Bernard Dubourdieu was met by Captain William Hoste and his four ships based on the island and in the following battle Hoste sank the French flagship, captured two others and scattered the remainder of the Franco-Venetian squadron." → "The French invasion force under Bernard Dubourdieu was met by Captain William Hoste and his four ships based on the island. In the following battle, Hoste sank the French flagship, captured two others, and scattered the remainder of the Franco-Venetian squadron."?

    Gary King (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with you on the splitting of the sentence in the lead, so have made the change. Adacore (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - probably should mention that the Oxford dictionary of National biography is a subscription database, not everyone has access to it online (this doesn't mean you can't use it as a reference, just that you need to say that "subscription required" or something like that in the reference). Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done.

    Comments

    Adacore (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seems to be a very minor formatting problem with the table listing Captain Hoste's squadron. The entry for the Ship HMS Volage has a slight offset in the divider between the ship and rate columns for me.
    On my screen it looks fine. Do you know what might be causing it?--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably just IE7 being screwy, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Adacore (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Total crew numbers for the ships would be useful for putting the casualties in context, if they're known, but I'd guess they're probably not. Both in the tables and in the Aftermath section.
    I can probably find the British, but with the French it will be difficult to find anything precise. Would this unbalance the table, or shall I go ahead and insert the British figures anyway?--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think any figures would be useful here, but you might want to get advice from another editor too. Adacore (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given it has a name, I'd say "...the xebec Eugenio..." rather than "...a xebec Eugenio..."
    • The phrase "...the cannon's discharge instantly swept the bow of Favorite clear of the French and Italian boarding party." seems a little unencyclopaedic to me. Is this a direct quote from the source and/or could it be rephrased?
    Although its not a direct quote, swept clean is used by at least two of the sources. I will attempt to rephrase, how is: "the cannon's discharge instantly destroying the French and Italian boarding party gathered in Favorite's bow."--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's probably a little better, but if you think the original wording was more true to the source(s) then you might want to stick to that. Adacore (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Similarly "...becoming a total wreck." seems a bit colloquial, however I suppose it may be appropriate in the case of a shipwreck?
    "a total wreck" is a nautical term for a ship that cannot be salvaged and returned to service.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK - I thought that might be it.
    • In Conclusion, "...not without the death of five men and several more seriously burnt when the blazing mainmast collapsed." - Were the deaths and the burns both caused by the mainmast collapse?
    I believe so. Does this needs changing at all?
    Probably not, I just had to read it a few times to understand exactly what it meant. (If it wasn't the case then some clarification might've been necessary). Adacore (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the first sentence of the final paragraph of Aftermath, I'd start with "Following the battle..." or similar, and mention that the numerical superiority was of naval vessels (is it?), to put it in context.
    I don't understand these points, could you clarify?--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was merely trying to say that the phrase "British numerical superiority in the region was assured" is without context - is it talking about numerical superiority of men? Ships? When was it assured? As a result of the battle? Adacore (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed the wording slightly. Does this work?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And in the final sentence of "Aftermath", it's unclear which action "The action..." refers to - the Battle of Lissa, or the action of 29 November 1811?
    Done.
    • It might be beneficial to include the subtitle of the reference book "The Frigates" (An Account of the Lighter Warships of the Napoleonic Wars). Similarly with "The Victory of Seapower" (Winning the Napoleonic War 1806-1814).
    Done.
    Adacore (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In background a sentence or two with broader scope than is given may be useful - the fact that this was in the context of the Napoleonic Wars, for example, is only explicitly mentioned in the lead and the infobox. I'm not sure where or how this should be integrated though.
    I will get on this this evening.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm having a little bit of trouble with how to phrase this, I'll have to think about it. Which information do you think is most relevent here?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My only real problem is that there's no reference in the Background section to the fact that the annexation of the Illyrian Provinces, seizing of Lissa or the battle were part of the Napoleonic Wars. I realise this can be inferred from context, I just think a couple of sentences to make it explicit would be useful - I'm as much at a loss over how to phrase it as you though, unfortunately. Adacore (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a go, but I'm not sure if it makes sense. Let me know what you think?--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review, I have either addressed your points, will address them soon or have asked for further information. Your interest is much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad to help - I've provided what clarification I can. I hope it's useful. Adacore (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I realise it's a pain, but the new map image that was added should ideally be in SVG format. This shouldn't really be a barrier to FAC, imo, but it's certainly something to put on the todo list. Adacore (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but I don't know what that means. Is there any guideline I could follow in doing this?--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    SVG stands for Scalable Vector Graphics. The image format policy is given in WP:Image use policy, and there are links to a number of pages concerning SVG on Wiki at WP:SVG. Adacore (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou for the links, but I'm afraid I'm still none the wiser. I understand why the image should be in SVG format, but I cannot figure out how to make it so.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support: I made a few tweaks that might improve the flow for us on the other side of the pond. My only concern is the large format of the Order of Battle. Perhaps this could be re-arrange to reduce it's size? Other than that it's a great article, and I support FA even with the current OoB. Maury (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thankyou, I reverted one or two of your changes (mainly where you changed British spellings to American), but your edits and comments have really improved the article. I'm not a genius at tables I'm afraid, how would I go about shrinking the table to see what it looks like?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Geez, I wish I knew! I simply avoid tables whenever possible, which I'm afraid won't be terrible helpful. Maury (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, perhaps it should simply be moved to the bottom of the article? That seems fairly common in similar articles, and I don't believe it would effect the flow negatively. Maury (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - excellent prose. I can find no definite problems at all. Only one thing I'm confused about, and that's probably just my ignorance of the subject: Erm, naval action? That's really standard terminology for a conflict at sea? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 17:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep. There are a number of terms that can be used (battle, engagement etc.), but action is certainly widely used in the sources. Thankyou very much--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    So would anyone be upset if I experimentally moved the order of battle section to the bottom? I think this may improve the flow, and it's not vital that it be where it is, IMHO. Maury (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please try it by all means, I had a look at what it would be like last night but I wasn't sure and rather than leave it and have to immediately sort out all the links that would have to be added, I decided not to save until I had thought about it some more. If you want to try please go ahead, I would appreciate your feedback on what it looks like.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It seemed to work. Does it look ok for everyone else? Does it improve the article, or make it worse? Maury (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No objections?! Please, feel free to move it back if you don't think it's in the right place now. And I re-iterate my Support! Maury (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I too was waiting for external comments before pitching in. I have to say that for my part, I quite like it in its new position and am happy for it to stay there.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support This is a clear and coherent article - I felt that I understood both the details of the battle and its context after reading it. I think that the table was probably unnecessary, as it is a bit overwhelming, but otherwise everything was in tip-top shape. :) The article is well-written, well-sourced, and comprehensive.

    • Image:Battle of Lissa 1811 Map.png - It would be best if the books mentioned in this image description could be fully referenced on the image page itself with title, author, and publication information. That way anyone looking through the images will understand the references. And, ideally, as someone already mentioned, this should be in SVG format.

    Thanks for your hard work! Awadewit (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:07, 22 June 2008 [46].

    Art Houtteman[edit]

    previous FAC (04:36, 22 January 2008)

    After having the article pass GA and having it looked at by several people, I believe I solved any problems from the last FAC, and am trying my hand at making this an FA again. Comments really appriciated, of course :) Wizardman 00:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Gary King (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikilink dates in references so they are formatted per WP:CITE/ES
    • There are a few dates that are not linked and should be if you choose to link other dates
    • One-hitter leads to a disambiguation page

    Gary King (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved stuff from Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments (ec) I don't know a lot about sports, so please advise me if my comments are worthless.
    • Needs non-breaking spaces throughout.
    • Known on the sandlot for his pitching motion... What's a "sandlot"?
    • The last paragraph of the lead concerns me. All three sentences in that para start with "After". Try to change around the wording some.
    • Art Houtteman was born in Detroit, Michigan on August 7, 1927 Wikilink August 7.
    • Is there any more info on his early life?
    • Due to the Tigers' pitching injuries, as well as many top players serving their country as World War II was coming to a close (Houtteman was too young for the draft), Art Houtteman made his debut on April 29. Wikilink World War II and April 29. As it would be pointless of me to comment on every Wikilink, just make sure the month and days are Wikilinked.
    • He was not on the active roster, and as a result did not pitch, during the Tigers' 1945 World Series victory over the Chicago Cubs. Why is there a comma after the word "pitch"?
    • What's a "shutout"?
    • However, Houtteman's luck went from bad to worse. Is this sentence really necessary?

    The prose generally seems pretty good. I read up to the Military section, so let me know when these issues are addressed, and I'll have more. Cheers, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • In progress of fixing what you've noted. Wizardman 21:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually, there's no requirement by the MOS or FA criteria for full dates within context to be linked. Some prefer that dates are left unlinked. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • From MOS:LINK, Where a date contains day, month, and year—25 March 2004—or day and month—February 10—a link will permit the date preferences of the reader to operate. Day, month, and year must all be linked for the preference to work fully. So while it's not required, it is preferred. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • More comments
    • "We’ll be back in the first division this season because Art Houtteman is back. Houtteman makes us at least a dozen games better than" last year's Tigers' team. Wouldn't this be better, "We’ll be back in the first division this season because Art Houtteman is back. Houtteman makes us at least a dozen games better than [last year's Tigers' team]."?
    • In ref 25, use an emdash or an endash instead of two hyphens.

    Other than that, I can't find anything else wrong. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support All my concerns have been addressed. Very well-written, plenty of good info and well-referenced. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments

    Otherwise sources look good. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I'm unsure about Baseball LibraryAlmanac, so I recommend Retrosheet as a replacement. SABR is a well-known organization in the baseball world, so it should be possible to prove that their people are experts in the field. Since I'm watching the NBA Finals tonight, I'll look for media stories tomorrow. Giants2008 (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm here, some printed sources lack page numbers, which are needed for verification purposes. Giants2008 (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The baseball almanac ref I can move to retrosheet, as it's the same information anyway. As for the page numbers, I'm fairly sure that the ones that don't have them don't have them only because I couldn't find them anywhere. I can look through them again, but I put in whatever information I could find. Wizardman 00:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I found an editors page on the SABR site here and it appears discouraging. While it includes several book authors, it doesn't seem that they are all experts, and the Chief Editor's credentials in particular are uninspiring. This is crucial because the FAC is in deep trouble without this source. This is the page of Houtteman's bio author. It does say he is the editor of a trade publication in Washington, but nothing on what publication. Giants2008 (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On the positive side, the biography does list its sources. Giants2008 (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks reliable to me. ffm 22:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okies, now that I'm done with the horse show that was taking up most of my time, what's the status? Did we replace baseball almanac? And what's the status on SABR? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I went and changed the reference over to Retrosheet. As for SABR, it seems like it would be okay, at least for this bio because SABR does cite sources for its own bio. Plus, the author of Houtteman is a rather prolific one on the site, so it seems okay. Plus, without it there's virtually no chance of it even being a GA, since that's where all the family info is coming from. Wizardman 16:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll leave the SABR out for other reviewers to decide on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone verify how Warren Corbett meets WP:SPS? What trade publication? Need to track down that he is published by reliable, independent sources as an expert in the field. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He's accepted as a baseball historian by Major League Baseball here. I'll try and track down some more. Wizardman 20:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That works. Can you do a lingo check? I found some undefined terms in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll go through tomorrow and do cleanup/lingo checks where I can find any issues. Wizardman 03:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved stuff from Blackngold29 03:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • "He finished the season with a 7–2 record, a 3.42 ERA, seven complete games, two shutouts, and a batting average of .300.[2]" His batting average or opponents batting average? Just wanted to make sure since it would appear Pitching stat, Pitching stat, Pitching stat, batting stat. (If it is his batting average ignore this).
    • "in which he had to drive in the winning run himself" would sound better as "In which he drove in the winning run himself"
    • "He had originally been classified 4-F, or medically ineligible for the draft.." Why was he allowed to enter if he was 4-F?
    Overall, it's well written. Blackngold29 00:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fixed the first two comments, as for the last one I'm not sure of the answer. I'll ask someone who's more knowledgeable regarding military matters how that works to see if I can figure it out. Wizardman 21:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought maybe the war had reached the point where they relaxed the rules to allow more people in (that's just a random guess though)? The sources said nothing about this? Blackngold29 22:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nope. Granted, he was classified as 4-F for World War II, but served in the Korean War. Maybe something happened i between there. In either case, can't seem to find anything on this yet. Wizardman 22:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          I hopefully was able to fix the 4-F matter now, I expanded it a bit based on what SABR had written for it, twas all I could find for it. Wizardman 23:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My comments have been addressed. Good job with the article. Blackngold29 03:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments

    • For the win-loss record, that's not a range, so I'm fairly sure it should just be a hyphen, not an en dash.
    • "He was called up to the majors into a pitching staff that lost players due to injuries and being called up to fight in WWII." - awkward, rephrase.
    • In the link "All-Star appearance," I think only "All Star" should be linked - put "appearance" after the link.
    • "He played three more seasons with the Tigers, then he was traded to Cleveland, where he pitched for the pennant-winning Indians of 1954."
    • "he finished his career in the minor leagues for a couple seasons, then Houtteman retired and became a sales executive in Detroit before his death in 2003." - erm, capital letter at the beginnning of the sentence? ;) Also, you first refer to Houtteman by a pronoun and then by his last name, which sounds awkward. One last thing - his death probably deserves a separate sentence, and it sounds awkward squashed into this one.

    Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 02:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Inconsistent number usage in the second paragraph of the lead. We have "age of 17" and "fifteen games". If the choice was mine, I would change the first of these to avoid having a number end a sentence, but it's up to you.
    • Capitalization error: "he finished his career".
    • Early life: Link 1927 since it is a full date and the remainder is linked.
    • Detroit Tigers, Hard Luck Houtteman: We don't need his first name again here.
    • Redundancy: "yet suffered an extra inning 2–0 loss despite this." Yet and despite this.
    • "Houtteman pitched 13 games as a relief pitcher" Try "Houtteman appeared in 13 games as a relief pitcher".
    • And before "an earned run average".
    • "At the end of the season, Houtteman was declared by six of the eight minor league managers as the top minor league pitching prospect in the International League." Reword to: "At the end of the season, Houtteman was declared by six of the eight International League managers as the top pitching prospect in the league." Also remove being from the next sentence.
    • Capitalize Hall of Famer.
    • In fact, his first victory".
    • "He then lost eight more" Needs to say games.
    • "when tragedy nearly struck". Be very careful with phrases like this, as they can easily be seen as POV.

    Not too bad for the most part. If I get time, I'll perform some cleanup myself in the next few days. Giants2008 (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Done with all of them except the final point. I understand your concern, however if someone dies in a car wreck, tragedy strikes. He almost died, so tragedy nearly struck. That's the way i see it, and i can't think of a good way to reword it. Wizardman 22:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still don't like the tragedy part. The guideline WP:EUPHEMISM lists tragedy as a word to avoid. I would write "when he nearly died in an automobile accident." The rest of it looks okay, so I give Provisional Support due to source concerns. If the SABR site is not considered reliable, this FAC is pretty much done. If other reviewers okay the site, count me as a full support. Giants2008 (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Alright. I went and changed that sentence. I'll see if I can get more opinions on whether or not the source is reliable enough (I think SABR's one of those where a case-by-case basis would have done) Wizardman 22:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • My source concern looks to be taken care of above. The author seems to be a notable baseball historian, so I now give my full Support. Good job on the article. (Full disclosure: I made a few fixes myself, as I said I would above. Nothing major, just some minor edits.) Giants2008 (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Close to Support I've done some CE today. I know this fine article has been at FAC since the 9th, but could the nominator and User:SandyGeorgia spare me another hour or two in the morning? GrahamColmTalk 20:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the one thing that's keeping it from being closed is a nice copyedit to fix some jargon and the like, so by all means take your time and do what you can. :) Wizardman 21:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All done except for this odd sentence which I suspect is jargon: This was due to Jim Delsing who was caught stealing after a single, and the two batters that were walked were caught in double plays. It's the were walked were caught phrase. GrahamColmTalk 09:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I went and removed it, it really didn't contribute much and was indeed jargon. Thanks for reviewing it and fixing it up. Wizardman 13:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SandyGeorgia: Have your concerns been addressed? GrahamColm seems to have taken care of the jargon issue. Wizardman 18:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:07, 22 June 2008 [47].

    Eric Brewer (ice hockey)[edit]

    I've been working on this article on and off for quite a while now and feel that it meets all featured article criteria. It is well written, complete with images, and very well cited. Hopefully you all agree and we can add another FA to the lot! – Nurmsook! (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Gary King (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link dates like "13 September 2002", etc. in the references
    • Unlink years like "in 2003 for" per MOS:UNLINKYEARS
    • "defense" → "defence" for Canadian spelling; ensure all spelling is Canadian

    Gary King (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Blackngold29 04:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For instance, during the 2004–05 NHL lockout,
    • There were a few peacock terms "a respectable mark", "had an impressive playoffs". They should be eliminated.
    Overall, good job with the article. Blackngold29 05:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - Looks good to me. Blackngold29 06:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • What makes IMDb a reliable source for his (I presume) middle name?
    • Would be nice if the publications, like the newspapers, were italicised.
    Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • For my taste, there are too many wikilinks in the article. For example, when there are four separate wikilinks in a row that is too many.
    • Also, I would like to remove Charitable contributions as a subsection under Personal history. Could that not be includes without being a separate section? Its removal would reduce choppiness.
    • I am changing a few things about the writing style (e.g. too much wordiness, some punctuation issues) which you can feel free to change back to the way you have it. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. What happened at the end of his career that he did not suit up for three years? What is the state of his career now? I am not quite clear. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick Comment - Since the article is being worked on as I type this, I won't provide a full review yet. I do want to point out one early concern of mine. None of the newspaper citations have page numbers for verification purposes. Is it possible to add these? Giants2008 (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to point out, I removed the IMDb ref on his name, since that's not a reliable source. Plus one's name doesn't need sourcing. Wizardman 23:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    < Content moved to talk page> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Nishkid64, though not the general factotum, quotes the opposite point of view (the old, displace one regarding n-dashes) in his comments under Zhang Heng. (I realize you are removing this discussion to the talk page so that it will not be clarified in public.)
    To quote
    "*For the win-loss record, that's not a range, so I'm fairly sure it should just be a hyphen, not an en dash.
    No, win-loss record requires an en dash. 7–9 not 7-9. See WP:DASH. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Please clarify for all of us. –Mattisse (Talk) 03:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As correctly stated by Nishkid, scores require endashes. They do not require html endashes; the hard-coded endashes that this article used were fine. It is not necessary to change a direct endash to an html endash. Further discussion on the talk page please, or please see WP:DASH or Dash to understand an html endash in relation to other completely acceptable ways of entering an endash. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That link is not helpful for those of us who do not know html as it does not discuss the difference between "html" endashes and others. It just discusses when dashes in general are used. Perhaps you can recommend some more explanatory links. –Mattisse (Talk) 20:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On a quick glance, I believe the hyphens and endashes are correct now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • "and he was inducted into the BC Sports Hall of Fame with his fellow British Columbians from the 2002 Canadian Olympic Men's Ice Hockey team in 2003 for this accomplishment." In 2003 should probably be moved to the end of this sentence. I'm not a fan of ending sentences with numbers, but it flows better that way. This also seems quite long; see if it can be chopped a bit.
    • Personal life: "program, a program" Redundant. "find and develop both players and coaches".
    • Remove second Kamloops link in section.
    • Playing career, Prince George Cougars: "his final season with his minor league hockey team" Again, a pair of identical words close together, in this case his. Perhaps change the second to the team's nickname.
    • The first paragraph of this section has all sorts of number issues. The general rule is to spell only numbers lower than 10, although some editors like to spell all numerals.
    • "with an improbable playoff run with his Cougars teammates." More redundancy. Try to audit this throughout. In this case, try something like "by helping the Cougars go on an improbable playoff run."
    • "Brewer finished this run with six points in the 15 Cougars games." How about "the Cougars' 15 games."
    • What was his injury in 1998?
    • Do we need another WHL link here? There is a lot of overlinking in general.

    I'm not happy with what I've seen so far. There are some other rough patches in the first few sections, but these should get you started. Please attempt to procure the services of a quality copy-editor, who can help smooth out the entire text. Giants2008 (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose—much improved 1a. I find too many glitches at the top for this to be considered "professional"-standard prose. Can you get someone new to copy-edit it carefully throughout? New is important, so they're relatively distant from the writing/editing of this text.

    • Opening: "currently" is a no-no—see "Usage" in MOS. You need "as of 2008" or something like it. If captains of hockey teams didn't change so often, we might let it go as "since March 2007", but I don't think so here.
    • "Portions"—sounds like a recipe. Why not just "parts of his career"?
    • One statement in the second para has "also": why not insert "also" into all statements? Or none.
    • "In 1999, Brewer was named to the Prince George Cougars' all-time team"—Is "named to" idiomatic? If people really do say this, leave it; otherwise use the more familiar "selected for".
    • A medal "came" during the Olympics? Flew in the window?
    • "his fellow British Columbian teammates"—remove "fellow" as redundant.

    Then in the first section:

    • "Brewer was born on 17 April 1979 in Vernon, British Columbia, to parents Anna and Frank Brewer"—spot the redundant word.
    • "In the summer of 2004, Brewer married Rebecca Flann whom he met while"—comma just about required before "whom".

    And lots more. TONY (talk) 02:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for these comments. I am working on a large copy-edit of the article and will also look into finding a "new" copy editor. – Nurmsook! (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm currently looking over the article. I'm a bit busy in real life though, at the moment, but I hope to be done with the copyedit in a few days, at most. Thank you for your patience, Maxim(talk) 19:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • "who has been serving" --> "who has served"?
    • "He is an NHL All-Star and Olympic gold medalist." - the NHL thing, at least, needs an explanatory wlink
    • Any particular reason to use ref 2 in the lead? It's kinda out of place as the only one.
    • Same with ref 3 - nothing there massively contentious...
    • "When he was fourteen, Brewer's family moved" - change to "his family"...
    • Spell BCAHA out in full at least once.

    giggy (:O) 13:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll get to the top three points, I usually save the lede for last... ;-) Maxim(talk) 14:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Maxim(talk) 20:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, giggy (:O) 01:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I do not know anything about hockey, but I was able to figure out, to a decent degree, how good this player was without too much trouble. I did not have to do too much clicking and I did not have to painstakingly reread the article. The statistics were clear and many of them were compared to some sort of benchmark, so it was clear even to someone like me what they meant - thank you! I have just a couple of quibbles:

    • Brewer finished the playoffs with six points before the Oilers were eliminated four games to two by the Stars, a point-per-game average - Does this make sense? Something seemed to be missing to me.
    • Brewer has six points; Oilers lost 4–2; thus, Brewer has a point-per-game. That's the intended meaning. If you can make a bit less clumsy, I'd highly appreciate that. :-)
    • I must be really dense today, because I still don't understand! Awadewit (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how more simply that can be explained... OK, let's try again. ;-) Brewer and his Oilers are in a best-of-seven playoff series against the Stars. The series lasts six games; Stars win four, Oilers win two. Thus, the Oilers lose the series 4–2. During that six-game series (4+2=6), Brewer has six points. Thus, Brewer has a point-per-game average; on average, he had one point per game (6÷6=1). Clearer now? :D Maxim(talk) 20:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you think "a one point-per-game average" or "a point-per-game average of one" would be clearer? The lack of the "one" was what was throwing me. I thought I was missing something. Awadewit (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made "one point-per-game average". Is that better? Maxim(talk) 20:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In his second season with the Oilers, Brewer began to evolve into a top NHL defenceman and was assigned to play against the opposing teams' top players by Oilers head coach Craig MacTavish. - "Top" is a bit colloquial and it is repeated throughout the article. Could we find a more precise word to use here and throughout the article?
    • Fixed.
    • There are still quite a few uses of the word "top" throughout the article. Could we reduce those? Awadewit (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am relying on the source assessment above that indicates all of these sources are reliable (thanks for that!) and I checked the images which seem to be licensed under a CC license from flickr, so everything looks to be in order! Nicely done! Awadewit (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. Maxim(talk) 14:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You finish copy-editing, I come back for another review. Simple system, isn't it? Here goes.

    • Hyphen in "International Ice Hockey Federation sanctioned"?
    • Prince George Cougars: Still a "4 goals" but the numbers thing is better overall.
    • Still would like to know what his injury was. Is it mentioned in the sources?
    • References out of order [19][16].
    • New York Islanders: The team doesn't need a link since it's linked in the last sentence of the previous section.
    • Thirty is spelled out. This should probably be fixed.
    • Edmonton Oilers: Comma after "prospect of playing for the Oilers".
    • Team overlinking: Extra Islanders and Rangers links and two Dallas Stars links.
    • Comma after "who was a free agent".
    • St. Louis Blues: "twenty-three assists for twenty-nine points" are more spelled numbers.
    • Two Columbus Blue Jackets and Phoenix Coyotes links in section.

    I asked for a quality copy-editor, and Maxim is probably the best hockey writer we have. The page is much better and with these fixes it will be well on its way. Giants2008 (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No doubt on that one, what a help Maxim has been to this article. I've also just addressed all of the concerns you listed here except for the injury. I've looked up and down but can't seem to find straight proof of the exact injury. I would assume it was a spained knee (such as his injury with Lowell), but obviously this does not meet WP:V. And as a heads up for anyone in general, the numerical system I'm using in this article (or have been trying to use) is to spell out any one-word number (ie: 1-20, 30, 40, etc.) If I simply put in numbers I think this article would look terrible as it largely includes stats, and my method seems to be fine per WP:MOSNUM, although let me know if this is a problem. – Nurmsook! (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Much-improved since it first came here. A little work by a fresh editor can make all the difference sometimes, and I think this is a textbook example. Giants2008 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:07, 22 June 2008 [48].

    Emmy Noether[edit]

    Nominator(s): Scartol • Tok

    This article has been intensively rewritten, refined, and revised for the past two months by myself (mostly the bio) and WillowW, with some extraordinary assistance from the kind folks at WikiProject Mathematics – particularly Geometry guy and R.e.b.. It has also received two peer reviews, from JayHenry and Karanacs.

    There are some minor tweaks still coming on her contributions to invariant theory and elimination theory, but we feel that it is stable, polished, and ready to be Featured. – Scartol • Tok 15:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (My input was very minor. R.e.b. contributed much of the mathematics; I just tidied. I hope to help out with this review. Geometry guy 22:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    Comment 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 good, links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    :Yeah, this was the work of other folks; I usually don't use citation templates. sigh.. I'll try to get it all sorted. Thanks. – Scartol • Tok 17:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I only found one – a cite book – and changed it to a non-template citation (since it only appears once). Please let me know if I missed others. – Scartol • Tok 17:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You got it. The cheaters method of checking is to hit the "edit this page" tab and scroll to the bottom where the templates used on the page are listed. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • A suggestion: use {{persondata}}
    • The section "1932" is rather... oddly titled. Could it be changed to something more descriptive?
    • "is/are considered" in the lead - by whom?
    • I found a contraction - there might be more, watch out for those.

    I'll check the lead's prose later. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for these. I feel (and others I've worked with on the article agree) that infoboxes often distract from more than they add to an article. This is such a case, I feel.
    I agree that "1932" is an unusual section title, but it was a year of turning points, and while I'm not opposed to changing it, I wonder if others agree that it should be changed. I'll scan for contractions and unattributed passive voice as you've mentioned. Thanks again! – Scartol • Tok 22:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed the section title to "Recognition", since I realized – after being stubborn here earlier, heh – that the events of '32 all have to do with her finally receiving some recognition. – Scartol • Tok 12:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, {{persondata}} isn't an infobox - read the template. I'm fine with the other things, though. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, my bad. I'll add it tomorrow. Thanks! – Scartol • Tok 03:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. – Scartol • Tok 12:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What a fascinating subject! The personality section, though, seems a bit out of place. I'll probably get around to finishing the article and giving a full review later. BuddingJournalist 22:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone else said this in another spot, and I wonder where you might suggest moving it. (The other editor never responded.) Maybe before "Expulsion"? – Scartol • Tok 22:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved "Personality" to above "Moscow", to provide a transition between the main part about Göttingen and the more detailed sections on Moscow, Recognition, etc. Hopefully this is more suitable? – Scartol • Tok 12:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments An article on a female mathematician! Yeah! Overall, I thought it was quite good. I can't pretend to understand the mathematics sections - I tried very hard and read very slowly, but some things escaped me anyway. I think that these "maths" are just too far beyond my meager abilities. I have a few questions and suggestions:

    • Often described as the most important woman mathematician of all time - Is there any way to make this sound better? It sort of sounds like "dude, she was the best ever", if you see what I mean.
    • I do. Changed to: "Often described as the most important woman in the history of mathematics..." – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So much less Beavis and Butthead. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Emmy began using her middle name at a young age. - Is this significant enough for the lead?
    • No, it's not. I had changed it to this from something else which was not really accurate, and tried to cobble something together. I've rewritten the first part of that paragraph to make it all work and be relevant. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • she was a primary source for the second volume of his 1931 text Moderne Algebra - Sounds like she is a book
    • Heh, it does, doesn't it? Revised to "...her work served as the foundation for the second volume...". – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The following year, Germany's Nazi government fired her from Göttingen - "fired her" or "had her fired from"?
    • The latter. Changed. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should we translate the names of her papers? Also, shouldn't the papers be in quotes rather than italicized?
    • In the Brewer & Smith book (the most recent source I used – can't speak for maths people), they're all italicized. I'll see what I can do about translations. (I'll need help from the maths people.) – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess math papers are more important than papers in other fields. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh. I'm recruiting someone to translate these. – Scartol • Tok 16:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the help of Jakob.scholbach, I've added English translations of all of her works mentioned in the article text. If they need to be added to the References section, I have no idea how to do so, since the {{Citation}} template doesn't have a "translation" field. I'm open to ideas and/or guidance. – Scartol • Tok 18:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the titles need to be translated in the references. Awadewit (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Near-sighted and talking during childhood with a minor lisp - awkward since adjectival verbs don't match
    • Agreed. I reversed the order of the sentence: "Known for being clever and friendly, Emmy was near-sighted and talked during childhood with a minor lisp." – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The third paragraph of "Biography" oddly splits up the information on Fritz. Since there is so little, why not group it together?
    • Agreed. Rearranged and reworded. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the next seven years she taught at the University of Erlangen's Mathematical Institute, without pay. - Why? Because she was a woman?
    • Presumably, although both the Dick bio and the Kimberling chapter indicate that it may have been a confluence of issues (Jewish heritage, gender, perhaps even personality). I worry that being too definite risks being inaccurate or suggesting certainty where there isn't any. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • During her first years at Göttingen, she worked in an unpaid and undefined role - Could the problems with her gender be made more explicit here?
    • Again, never mind! Damn my quest for certainty in an uncertain world. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In 1920 Noether collaborated with a colleague named W. Schmeidler on a paper about the theory of ideals. Their work was the first to define left and right ideals. The following year she published a landmark paper called Idealtheorie in Ringbereichen, which analyzed ascending chain conditions with regard to ideals. Canadian mathematician Irving Kaplansky called this work "revolutionary",[17] and its importance is seen in the use of the term "Noetherian ring" to describe a ring that satisfies an ascending chain condition on its ideals. - This paragraph seems a bit wordy or repetitive.
    • Agreed. Edited for concision. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In other instances she allowed her colleagues and students to receive credit for her ideas, helping them develop their careers rather than demanding tribute - This suggests that she did demand acknowledgement from van der Waerden - is that true?
    • No, it's meant to indicate that she prioritized helping others over what she could have done (ie, demand tribute). I've reworded it to: "...helping them develop their careers at the expense of her own career." – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The phrase "in other instances" suggests that somehow the algebra textbook incident was different - it doesn't seem that different, though. Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to "She sometimes allowed...". – Scartol • Tok 16:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never really been a fan of "Personality" sections, mostly because I don't think people have static personalities throughout their entire lives. It seems to me like this material might be better integrated into a description of her teaching. The broad statements at the beginning of the section seem a bit too broad to be of any value. Could you describe yourself in a sentence like that?
    • Since this keeps coming up, I'll try to weave it into the fabric of the article. I'm not sure how to do it, but I'll give it a shot. (I like it as a separate section myself, but as Mayor Quimby once said: "If that's the way the winds are blowing, let no one say I don't also blow!") – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I've integrated "Personality" into "University of Göttingen". Hopefully it's more seamless. (Less seamful? More seemly? heh) – Scartol • Tok
    • She showed an acute propensity for abstract thought, which allowed her to approach problems of mathematics in fresh and original ways - This doesn't seem to describe Noether in any specific way - all mathematics is abstract.
    • But apparently some mathematics is more abstract than others. Although I know absolutely nothing about it, the books I've read indicate that – just as some forms of literary theory exist at quite a distance from the texts they discuss (as you know) – Noether's work was very abstract and hard for some people to connect back to the numbers themselves. Perpahs WillowW can more effectively explain this. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be nice to try and explain this to the lay person somehow. Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, absolutely. :) As a foretaste, it's true that all math is an abstraction. But imagine an anstraction of an abstraction, and an abstraction of that, and yet another abstraction beyond even that. You might think that such super-abstract theories would not allow for many truths to be derived about them, since they have so few properties and offer few features or "handles" for the mind to grasp on. Noether's genius lay in deriving many essential truths for such systems; and they, being so general, instantly applied to all the less generalized mathematical systems, making them very powerful theorems indeed. Willow (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would it help to use the Einstein-relativity example at this point? There is a quote from Einstein saying he is surprised things can be understood in such a "general way". Awadewit (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a great quote, but Noether's theorems, as astonishing and general and influential as they are, are not representative of what people mean by Noether's gifts for abstract thought, at least from my initial reading. The tools for deriving them were already there, most notably Lie groups and the [calculus of variations]]. It's her later work, after 1920, that is more representative of her "abstract thought", her unique approach to begriffliche Mathematik to which she gradually converted other mathematicians and where she made the tools herself, by choosing to define novel mathematical objects in tasteful, productive ways. I'm going to try to capture that in a new section, but it may take a few days. Willow (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Her mathematical horizons broadened, and her work became more general and abstract, as she became acquainted with the work of David Hilbert - Again, I don't think the words "general" and "abstract" are specific enough.
    • I agree that "general" could probably go, but I'd argue for keeping "abstract" – again, just as some scientific work focuses on specific life forms or climate systems, others try to conceptualize abstractly what the underlying rules are behind it all (like the grand unification theory). It seems to me that her work became focused on a mathematics form of the latter. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could we somehow describe the abstractness of it for people like myself? Is that even possible? Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have the smallest doubt that we can do it together. :) Willow (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • research turned to determining the properties of ever-more-abstract systems defined by ever-more-primitive rules - I think the average reader will interpret "primitive" in the wrong way!
    • Agreed. Changed to "universal". – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote that, so of course I have no idea what you mean? :P "Primitive" here was trying to convey the idea of "basic" or "generalized", of stripping away ancillary details of a system to arrive at a core concept, sort of like Plato's ideals. For example, many things can be represented or described by a group; by inheritance, all those things partake of the properties of their group, and conversely, properties of the group must be found in every instance of it. Does that make any sense, or am I speaking mystically as usual? ;) Willow (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you mean, and in my opinion "universal" does nicely here. Would you rather use "generalized", W? – Scartol • Tok 18:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added some "citation needed" tags for a few statements that should probably have cites.
    • The maths people will have to take care of this, and the following three items. We're working on 'em. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • These have all been remedied. Huzzah! – Scartol • Tok 22:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Invariant theory and elimination theory" section does not explain what Noether's contribution was; it just describes what invariant theory and elimination theory are.
    • While the maths sections are still being expanded (from what I can tell), I believe this problem has been addressed through reorganization (it's been retitled as "Algebraic invariant theory") and the addition of info. – Scartol • Tok 02:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do folks still think this needs work? It looks remedied from where I sit. – Scartol • Tok 22:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This single work had a profound impact on the development of modern algebra - What was that profound impact?
    That's almost exactly what the source says, the History of Algebra by B L. van der Waerden. He doesn't explain how himself, and, honestly, I don't think I'm going to really understand that before the FAC closes. I'm having a hard enough time catching up on pre-Noether mathematics, without having to understand the consequences of Noether's math for late 20th century mathematics. :P Maybe one of our mathematician friends can help out? Willow (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the "Non-commutative algebra" section, can the two paragraphs be joined together? If not, can the first paragraph be expanded to explain central simple algebra a bit more?
    On it; but please be patient until tomorrow. Willow (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Footnote 59 is not formatted like the rest, with the appropriate link.
    • Good catch. Remedied. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should the German sources in the "References" list be marked as "German"?
    • Sure, why not? The {{Citation}} template doesn't have a "language" field, so I had to stick it in at the end of the line; I hope this is okay. (I assume you're referring to the hypertext links, not all of the German-language entries.) – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I was referring to all of the German articles. I thought there was a MOS rule somewhere that all foreign-language references had to be marked with the appropriate language. Maybe that has changed, though. Ah! I can't keep up! Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks as always for your eagle eyes. I look forward to having your support. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're my inspiration. I wish I had your eyes, and the brain behind them. :) 'Til later, Willow (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely forgot I hadn't supported yet! My major concerns have been met and I know the editors will continue to work on the accessibility issues. Awadewit (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I truly like the article. I'm not into FAC and standards, so I can't decide whether support or not. Just one comment: I strongly suggest that you supply the urls of the historical papers. (See my comment at the article's talk page). http://digizeitschriften.de has practically all historical papers available, for example "Rationale Funktionenkörper". Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for this resource, but I can't seem to make it work with the {{Citation}} template. I believe it's due to the fact that the URLs contain [brackets], which interfere with the MediaWiki software's processing of the code. For example, the URL for the actual article "Rationale Funktionenkörper" is:

    http://www.digizeitschriften.de/index.php?id=loader&tx_jkDigiTools_pi1[IDDOC]=514934

    If anyone has any ideas on how to overcome this, I'm all ears. – Scartol • Tok 22:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    On it, boss. :) Willow (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ...done! :) Willow (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. Danke, WillowW. Your Fahrvernugen is sehr gut. I don't know how to speak German. – Scartol • Tok 23:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Na, das war ja nett, Jakob! :) Sei mir so gut, und werf einen flüchtigen Blick auf den Artikel, List of publications of Emmy Noether; ist alles richtig übersetzt und alle mögliche Links gemacht? (Ich bin keine Deutsche, das geb' ich von vorn herein zu, aber ich schlag mich so durch, wenn's sein muß — oder ich versuch's zumindest. ;) Wenn alles richtig ist, dann werd' ich das alles übertragen. Jede Korrektur ist höchst willkommen, und wenn wir noch was machen können, um Deinen Support zu gewinnen, das tun wir ja gerne. Schönen Dank im voraus! :) Willow (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No idea what the preceding text says, so unless someone tells me differently, I will interpret it as a significant contributor support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck per translation of the German from Dr pda. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Couple of further comments (already present at the article talk)

    • "Galois theory is related to invariant theory". Please explain this. Galois theory is concerned with associating groups to field extensions, whereas invariant theory is about groups occuring in geometric transformations etc. So the relation, if any, is very rough, in my view. I would just eliminate the "is related to i.th."
    I removed it, as you suggested. As you say, the association is rather rough; I only included that to give the reader a sense of continuity in the exposition. Willow (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a finitely generated domain A over a field k has a transcendence basis x1,...xn such that A is integral over k[x1,...xn]." I'm not sure whether the term transcendence basis is the usual term. (It may be so). As far as I know, tr.b. refers to a field extension K over k. Perhaps you just say that A has some elements x1,...,xn such that...
    Reworded. Willow (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the non-commutative algebra, I could imagine a word about the Brauer group would be a plus. Such a remark would show how modern the stuff they did still is. Perhaps just a footnote. (The Brauer group classifies division algebras).
    Yes, that would be good for some readers, but not for others. As mentioned on the Talk page, I'm intending to put much of that into a daughter article Introduction to the algebra of Emmy Noether.
    • As for references: in addition to the refs you already have, I propose to add a ref to a contemporary math textbook whenever a particular theorem is talked about (for example Noether normalization lemma, also give a link to Eisenbud, Commutative Algebra or something similar. This way a reader interested in the mathematics (less in history) will have the opportunity to learn the theorem (the historical refs are of less value in this respect, because the mathematical language has completely changed). If you want, I can help out with these. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very nice offer, Jakob! :) I have very limited access to textbooks myself, and I don't know which ones are the textbooks that everyone cites, so that'd be very helpful. :) Willow (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I reviewed this article in depth previously and just had the chance to re-read. It's very well-written. I believe it's neutral and stable. Conforms to MOS items as far as I know. I'm not qualified to comment on the mathematics, so the fitness of this section should be attested to by someone other than myself. --JayHenry (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, issues resolved. --Laser brain (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Comments - Not far off, but some fixes needed.[reply]
      • Someone loves their commas (mostly up until "Contributions to mathematics and physics" - different authors?); I removed several extraneous commas as I was reading. I think I got them all, but it might help to have a stickler go through it again looking for stylistic but ungrammatical commas.
        • Thanks for doing this. I don't know that I'd call all the ones you removed "ungrammatical", but neither do I think they needed to be included. I've taken another look and didn't see anything glaring – but of course it's hard for me to get much distance on the article at this point, heh. – Scartol • Tok 14:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ungrammatical was the wrong word.. I meant "not strictly grammatically necessary". Hope no offense taken. --Laser brain (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not even remotely. =) If I took offense at minor disagreements over grammar, I'd be out of a job, heh. (Let's not even get into how commas don't usually fall under the domain of grammar..) – Scartol • Tok 17:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Descended from a family of Jewish wholesale traders in Germany, he received a doctorate from the University of Heidelberg in 1868." These seem oddly unrelated facts to combine.
        • Agreed. I've rearranged that paragraph to group the background items together; hopefully it's less awkward now. – Scartol • Tok 14:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Her performance qualified her to teach at girls' schools, but she chose instead to continue her studies at the University of Erlangen." I don't follow. Why couldn't she teach at boys' schools? Because she was a woman or because her performance wasn't good enough?
        • As I hope the rest of the article makes clear, there was a pretty strong gender apartheid in schools at the time. I've added "teaching languages" to make it a little more clear; I don't want to get into the restrictions on teaching here – it shows up later in the article. – Scartol • Tok 14:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is her 1907 dissertation not available? You don't have it listed in her works, but I wonder if it is indexed somewhere.
    • This has been added to the References section. – Scartol • Tok 22:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "She spoke quickly (to reflect the speed of her thoughts, many said) ..." Do you mean "reflecting the speed"? Two different things.
        • Agreed. Changed to the latter. – Scartol • Tok 14:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the two places you mention her dissertation, you alternately say she referred to it as "crap" and "manure". It seems the former is the colloquial translation of mist and the latter is the literal translation? I'd stick with the former.
      • Up to the "Contributions to mathematics and physics" heading, you use spaced en dashes. Then, you started using spaced em dashes.
        • That would be the plural "you". =) I've gone through and fixed 'em up. (Note that in some direct quotes, I've transcribed the em dashes used in the original. I assume you're not referring to these.) – Scartol • Tok 14:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "citation needed" tags obviously need to be resolved before promotion is possible. --Laser brain (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No doubt. We're working on it. – Scartol • Tok 14:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for these, LB. We'll take care of them as soon as possible. – Scartol • Tok 11:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We've fixed what we can at this point. More repairs to come! – Scartol • Tok 14:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • These have all been remedied. – Scartol • Tok 22:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    }}

    • Ooof. Since it was a photo of a younger E. Noether, I assumed it was in the public domain. But of course that's not enough – and I have no idea how to find out the copyright status. I'm out of ideas here, except to remove it – and that would be such a shame. No picture of her at all? =( Ideas, anyone? – Scartol • Tok 22:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is in the public domain - you just needed a source. I have found one and updated the image page. Took five seconds - easy! Awadewit (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Smashing. Thanks, A. – Scartol • Tok 02:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to the sort of collapsed boxes at the bottom of Isaac Newton, for instance? If so, what do you have in mind? (There aren't any "University of Göttingen" boxes, heh.) – Scartol • Tok 02:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This is great, but I am wondering why the lead is six paragraphs long? It doesn't seem to summarize the article very well. Please consider reorganizing and condensing to make it concise. I recommend three paragraphs for an article of this length. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Originally it was four, but the fourth was very long (and we agreed that it needed all of its info), so the fourth was divided into three separate paragraphs. I actually feel that the lead – long though it is – does a good job of summarizing the article. The page is divided into two major sections: biography and mathematics/physics contributions. I feel that the lead encapsulates these, but of course I'm open to ideas from others on how to proceed here. – Scartol • Tok 13:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that the lead is an excellent summary of the article. The last three paragraphs work either split up or as one paragraph, in my opinion. However, Wackymacs, perhaps you could indicate what areas of the article are under- or overrepresented in the lead? Awadewit (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - This is a really nice article, but I am actually coming across more serious issues such as redundancy, which suggest this fails criteria 1a for "brilliant" prose. Here's an example from the lead: "Most of Noether's mathematical work was focused on algebra, and has been is divided into three "epochs". In the first epoch (1908–1919), she made important contributions contributed to invariant theory, most notably Noether's theorem, which has been called "one of the most important mathematical theorems ever proved in guiding the development of modern physics".[4]" - The first use of 'important' is unnecessary when it is later said in the quote. There are also many other issues which other reviewers have raised. To me, this does not look like its ready just yet. Have you considered withdrawing to work on this some more? I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages!. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Josh, I've run through the top few sections; you're right, there are a few idle words, but overall, I think this is worthy prose. I'll return later to run through the rest. TONY (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would point out that the following proposed revision is not grammatically correct: "In the first epoch (1908–1919), she contributed to invariant theory, most notably Noether's theorem..." We would have to say "...most notably with Noether's theorem..." (Which is awkward, in my opinion.) Thus, the current wording – "she made important contributions..." is appropriate, as I see it.
    If I could quibble about another point: The use of "has been divided" as opposed to "is divided" is appropriate as well, in my view, since we're borrowing the structure which her colleague Hermann Weyl created. Noether herself never made such distinctions, and (obviously) the structure has been imposed by an individual. Just as we usually say "Balzac's novel Le Père Goriot has been called his most important novel" to indicate that such a claim has been made by others, I feel that this particular wording is fair to use when discussing the division of Noether's work into different epochs. (It is unattributed passive voice, which I generally don't like, but insofar as we get into who divided it later in the article – and the lead is plenty long enough already, heh – I don't think it's a fatal error.)
    Some other issues about wording have been raised (I'm going to attack the overlinking later today, if all goes to plan), but I feel that they've been isolated examples and that the prose is generally solid. Of course if others feel differently, I will find someone to do a complete copyedit. – Scartol • Tok 17:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Another run-through by a new pair of eyes will not be disadvantageous, correct? I assume you, Scartol, want this article to be the best it possibly can? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I've asked one of the WP:LOCE for a copyedit. I will say that I'm eager to fix anything I can fix myself, so if you can highlight any areas that you feel need special attention, I'll be happy to have a look. – Scartol • Tok 15:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    }}

    • Weak Oppose - The lead has been copyedited, but nothing else since June 7th. Prose still needs improvement throughout, not just the lead. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any chance we could get some specifics on what's wrong with the prose? LaraLove just did a copyedit. (I asked her to watch for redundant prose and overlinking especially.) What needs fixing? – Scartol • Tok 14:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you actually look at that link, you'll notice no textual changes were made outside of the lead. The only prose changes were ones in the lead, from what I can see. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you said that already. But you didn't answer the question. Any chance we could get a list of specific non-lede changes that you feel are still needed? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My understanding is that when a person does a copyedit and doesn't change a sentence or paragraph, it means that the copyeditor believes the sentence or paragraph to be of high quality and doesn't need revision. This is what I usually do; perhaps others work differently? I assumed this was the case with LaraLove's copyedit. – Scartol • Tok 17:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose—Good work. Requirement for professional formatting. Otherwise good.

    • It's way too overlinked; I've removed some from the top of the article. Generally, avoid repeated links and obvious things like "English". It's not a dictionary, and we're supposed to know what "piano" means. Please weed out the trivial bright-blue splashes throughout, so that you focus the readers on the high-value links (of which there are plenty). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 08:46, June 4, 2008
    • I've reviewed each link in an attempt to fix this. Please let me know if I've missed any that should be removed. – Scartol • Tok 17:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment

    I wanted to comment to honor the apparent hard work of the editors involved in the article. I read it through, though I am unable to support because I do not understand the concepts described in the article that are vital importance to its overall cohesiveness. But I am unlikely to do that due to my own failings. I must leave it up to someone else to determine if they are sufficiently explained. However, I found her biography engaging and interesting. I would like to have had lunch with her. That would have been fun. Best of luck. --Moni3 (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Amendment: I pointed my partner to this article because she has a math minor and an affinity for this sort of thing. For the comprehensiveness of the mathematical concepts, she said it was as well-written and sufficiently explained as could be since there is no language available to break it down any simpler than it already is, in any concise manner. However, she did think that the Third Epoch was considerably less detailed than the previous two, as if the editor(s) had run out of steam at the end, or didn't understand it. Hope that, uh, helps. --Moni3 (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Two citation needed tags?
    • We're working on these. – Scartol • Tok 17:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "mathematics – specifically" — WP:DASH: Should not be spaced
    • Actually, spaced en dashes are, according to the MOS, an acceptable alternative to unspaced em dashes. – Scartol • Tok 17:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In the 1890's David Hilbert " — "In the 1890s David Hilbert "?
    • "In 1923-1924, Noether applied " — WP:DASH: requires en dash
    • Yes indeed. Also fixed. Thanks for your attention to detail! – Scartol • Tok 17:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    }}

    Gary King (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No problem. My eyesight is so good I could count the number of acne on a forehead. Gary King (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for sharing (pop). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. ElCobbola raised the issue of Image:Noether.jpg above. Unfortunately images from the early twentieth century are something of a twilight zone as regards copyright issues. I think we can accept that this photograph was taken between 1900 and 1910, but the photographer could have been aged 25 at the time, or lived a long life: another 40 years would suffice, as 1940 is less than 70 years ago. To establish that this is in the public domain in the US (which is what matters), what you really need is evidence that the image was published before 1923 (in the US) or before 1909 (outside the US). Otherwise, we have to wait until about 2025 before we can use it... :-) Geometry guy 00:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oof. Well, as I said before, I've tried without success to find a picture of Dr. Noether which is certified PD. Can we apply for fair use if we don't know the copyright status? – Scartol • Tok 20:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        For fair use you really need to know the copyright holder, unfortunately. It's a royal pita. The only thing I can suggest is to check the books you cite for pictures: it is possible that some of them give image credits. If you can find any hints of publication of a photograph before the dates above, you may have a public domain image. Otherwise, you may at least have a known copyright holder. Geometry guy 23:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • But of course I just took the books back to the library. =P I'll see what I can do. – Scartol • Tok 01:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: The image from Moscow State University is of the main building, a postwar example of Stalinist architecture. It was completed in 1953. It seems incongruous to have an image of building which did not then exist representing her tenure there in 1928–29. Kablammo (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Agreed. Will try to find a different pic. – Scartol • Tok 20:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: While doing a minor copy-edit, I saw that the lead is, in my opinion, more detailed than necessary. I removed the titles of her papers, as it seemed unnecessary and distracting to list them in the lead. I recommend removing any quotes, as well as any insignificant details that are explained in the body, i.e. her students were sometimes called the "Noether boys". Lara❤Love 18:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you in advance for your copyedit, Lara, especially on such short notice. However, the question of the lead has been laboriously discussed, refined, debated, and analyzed, as you will see in the resolved items under Talk:Emmy_Noether#Comments_from_Randomblue. While I really appreciate your attention to detail, I'm afraid this is exactly why I balked at the idea of another copyedit when Wackymacs first suggested it above. (This is nothing against you, Lara, please understand – the comments are coming from about 700 different directions. I apologize, LL, for not explaining this beforehand – it would be hard for you to have predicted this.)
    Now, how should we proceed? I've made it clear elsewhere that I preferred the lead as it was. Awadewit said on the talk page:

    These papers are clearly some of Noether's most important works; ergo, I think we should mention them. I would also endorse keeping "Noetherian rings" - how many people have a mathematical concept named after them? Very few. To a reader like myself who doesn't know anything about the math, a detail like this indicates how important Noether is.

    Ozob concurred:

    Noetherian rings are one of the most important concepts ever introduced in abstract algebra, probably only second to the basic definitions of rings, modules, and so on. They absolutely need to be included in lead; I think they deserve a hundred-point type sign saying "THESE ARE REALLY IMPORTANT!!!!!"

    I don't want to be stubborn, but it seems like a case of "We decided it ain't broke..." to me. – Scartol • Tok 19:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been through the process, I appreciate your frustrations! :) As someone who doesn't know the math, I found the article very interesting. However, when reading the lead and making my suggestions on it, it was about readability. While the papers may be important, for someone reading the lead to get an idea of what the article is about, the titles are not significant. It's similar to a sorority article I reviewed several months ago which listed the names of all the original members. Yes, they were important, but for readability, no one wants to read a list of names. I agree that the mention of the rings is important, and a big deal. The mention of boys however, not so much. So, for me, it's a matter of deciding what's most important and significant and including it in the lead in a way that flows best for the reader.
    Also, I believe going into specifics in the lead should be avoided. The point of the lead it not only to summarize the article, but to draw the reader in... to make the want to read the entire page. Summarizing by giving only the key information, and touching briefly on each topic, gives the reader the basic information while leaving them with a hunger for the details. That is what brilliant prose in a well-constructed lead is to me. Lara❤Love 19:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Randomblue (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifics should be included in the lead. We don't say "Charles Dickens was a famous novelist" and then neglect to mention his famous novels and we don't say "Albert Einstein was a famous scientist" and fail to mention what he discovered. Without the details, the reader just gets a vague of sense of Noether as a famous mathematician - that is not enough. What was she famous for in mathematics is the key question. Awadewit (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, we need to be specific! Adding not-so-specific titles like "Proof of a main theorem in the theory of algebras" takes up a lot of space in the lead and isn't interesting. The lead should focus on, for example, the content and impact" of these papers; that is the engaging material.Randomblue (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't suggesting the lead should be vague. There's a difference between summarizing with the basics and being vague. ...her students were sometimes called the "Noether boys", is interesting, but not particularly important, for example. It's also not mentioned in the body. It should be moved there. I removed the list of titles and Willow has improved the prose, so it reads much better now. Lara❤Love 17:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Not sure if this has been discussed before, but "Often described as the most important woman in the history of mathematics" seems contentious to me. Surely Ada Lovelace and Maria Agnesi are, at the least, more well-heard of than her? indopug (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Your comment here could easily lead to an argument about who is most important, whether "well heard of" and "important" are equivalent, and whether Lovelace's contributions were primarily to mathematics, but I think that misses the point. What we should be discussing here is not whether she really is the most important but rather whether it is factual to say that she is often so described. Do you think this claim is insufficiently sourced? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Attribution would be nice; "According to X, 'Noether is the most important...'" Since Einstein seems to have believed it, why not attribute it to him? Since he is so popular, his statement regarding her importance would carry weight with a lay reader, while at the same time disassociating her supreme importance from being "fact". indopug (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the whole question of "Greatest. Mathematician. Ever." is a little silly, but it is part of the historical dialog about Noether, so we pretty much have to cover it. It does help readers appreciate the importance of her work, and fire their enthusiasm for learning about her. :) My own feeling is that no attribution is needed in the lead, especially not having seen any contention in the published literature. Although we all have our personal favourites (e.g., your examples, Hypatia, Sophie Germain, Sofia Kovalevskaya, etc., etc.), the present consensus of mathematicians and mathematical encyclopedias seems to be for Noether, as you can see from the "Assessment" section. I appreciate the advantages of citing Einstein, but that wouldn't reflect that consensus; also, despite the New York Times headline, Einstein was not a mathematician and "did not pretend to be", according to Pais' biography. Willow (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK no worries; I honestly hadn't seen the Assessment until now. FWIW, having read that section, it looks a little silly having seven almost-consecutive sentences (incl. the two blockquotes) that are just variations of "Greatest. Mathematician. Ever.", besides revealing little additional information. While sentenes such as "In a 1964 World's Fair exhibit entitled "Men of Modern Mathematics"..." and "In his obituary, fellow algebraist B. L. van der Waerden says..." are interesting, the others are "consistently ranked as one of the greatest mathematicians", "greatest woman mathematician in recorded history", "greatest woman mathematician", "greatest woman ever to work in the field", "greatest woman mathematician up to her time", "best woman mathematician of all time", and "greatest mathematicians (male or female)". Is it possible to trim that section and remove a few of those sentences? Maybe cut down on the use of the G word? It just seems redundant and repetitive to the point where the reader goes "oh ok already she's the best-ever, lets move on". indopug (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're totally right; the last thing the article needs is a section written by Comic Book Guy! ;) Hoping that you like the condensation, Willow (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Better. Link the first instance of Einstein in the article. I'll review the rest tomorrow. indopug (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments on images:

    • I think it was mentioned above, but Image:Noether.jpg needs more details to support a public domain claim. {Country and date of first publication, as well as the date of death of the author if that is the basis for the PD claim.)
    • Since the image is from before 1910, I'm not sure why we need the author, who is unknown. Isn't it out of copyright? Awadewit (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Erlangen 1916.jpg may not be in the public domain in Germany (if that's where it was published), which uses life+70 as the copyright rule. It is at risk of deletion there. Recommend moving back to en Wikipedia and licensing as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}.
    • Image:Paul Albert Gordan.jpg, same as above, if published in Germany. Also needs details on authorship and publication.
    • Image:Zuerich vier Kirchen.jpg could use an English description if it's being used in an English article, but not a big deal.

    Kelly hi! 00:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm going to work on these tomorrow. Thanks for your patience, everybody! – Scartol • Tok 20:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Status? Have you pinged Kelly, Tony1 and Wackymacs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There's been no progress on the first image yet. Concerning the second image, the uploader seems to be a fairly prolific Commons contributor from Germany, who ought to know the relevant copyright law. I expect a clarification and/or modification of the license on Commons would suffice: e.g., it may be similar to this one, where the author (presumed to be Wolfgang Sauber) never disclosed his identity. Geometry guy 19:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I went looking for an image with a clear copyright, to insert it as a Fair Use image (since I've not found anything that's clearly PD). I finally found one, and now I need to scan it in. I will be able to do this tomorrow. I pinged Tony1 several days ago, and I just asked Wackymacs to drop by. I'll bug Kelly after I scan in the Fair Use image tomorrow. – Scartol • Tok 12:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I found the image online, so I've uploaded it to Wikipedia and added it to the article, along with a Fair Use Rationale on the image page. I believe this remedies the image problems. – Scartol • Tok 13:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    }}


    • ref 60 has dash problem
    • I guess someone fixed this. Could you clarify? Right now it uses the html ndash code. – Scartol • Tok 11:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Ozob fixed it. I didn't check the source code but the different dashes has different sizes, and the difference is visible on the screen. See for example the dash in ref 78, it's too small.
    Fixed. Ozob (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ref 167 has p. p. problem
    • Wow, I'm really confused. On my screen, the last ref is 103. – Scartol • Tok 11:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Must have been ref 67... but Ozob corrected it.
    • "The inverse Galois problem is still unsolved." citation needed?
    Fixed. Ozob (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Noether's result was later extended by William Haboush to all reductive groups by his proof of the Mumford conjecture" citation needed?
    Done. Ozob (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ref 81, p. -> pp.
    Fixed. Ozob (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "it was finally solved independently by Fogarty[74] and Fleischmann[75]" maybe add the respective dates
    Done. Ozob (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • different dashes in the two versions of titles : "Eine Verallgemeinerung der Euler-Poincaréschen Formel (A Generalization of the Euler–Poincaré Formula, 1928)"
    Fixed. Ozob (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • the use of the serial comma isn't consistent, see for example "such as Pavel Alexandrov[93], Hermann Weyl[94], Nathan Jacobson and Jean Dieudonné"
    Fixed in three places; I don't see any other non-serial commas. Ozob (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • the math in the "Algebraic invariant theory" section isn't spaced correctly (between +, -, and ..., for example)
    • Never a more heinous guffaw in the history of FAC. =) I'm not well-versed on how this is supposed to work, so I put spaces in everywhere I thought they should go. Someone who knows what they're doing should check and see if I'm right. – Scartol • Tok 11:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad you had a good laugh. Yes, it all seems correct now (Ozob corrected most of it)
    • "In a 1926/27 course given in Vienna, Leopold Vietoris defined a homology group, which was developed by Walther Mayer into an axiomatic definition in 1928." citation needed?
    It's given immediately prior, after the sentence "was developed in Austria." Reference number 86 at present. Should this be moved? Ozob (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved.
    Works for me. Ozob (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Randomblue (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Funny, it works for me now as well.
    • what is reference 82? It should maybe be translated and expanded.
    It's a journal abbreviation; I've added the full citation. As an aside, does anyone know if it's possible to wikilink a URL with brackets? As in http://www.digizeitschriften.de/index.php?id=loader&tx_jkDigiTools_pi1[IDDOC]=465901? Ozob (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See percent-encoding. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • mirror image the lead image
    • Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe this is an option for us. My understanding is that we're not allowed to alter copyrighted images. – Scartol • Tok 11:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care whether this is an option or not; what kind of attitude is this? If we can make the article better, lets just do it! :) However, if indeed we are not allowed to alter copyrighted images, then there isn't much we can do...
    That is my understanding as well. Scartol, pls consult on Awadewit on this; I believe it's similar to Joseph Priestley. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:MOS#Images - when an image is right-facing, it should be placed on the left-hand side of the page. Flipping the image is, IMO, a travesty, as it changes the artwork. We don't alter quotations and we shouldn't alter images, either. Awadewit (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is a crime to reflect images. Yesterday's featured article Common Treecreeper had a least one reflected image, see image 474px-Certhia_familiariscroppedmirror.jpg. Randomblue (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When an image is of a generic member of a largely-bilaterally-symmetric species, it's no crime, because some other individual of that species could equally likely look like its reflection. But if it's of an actual person, it shouldn't be done. Any individual person looks different from the left profile and from the right profile, so it would be a change of their appearance to reflect the picture, just as it would be a change to use Photoshop to change their hair color. In this specific instance, she's holding a pen; reflecting the image would change her apparent handedness as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, then.
    Why has this been capped twice when the image hasn't been adjusted ? See Awadewit's comment above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "University of Göttingen" is too long, split per talk
    I made a first draft of a split here. Is it OK? Willow (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "certain finiteness conditions" would go with a wikilink
    I added a wikilink to ascending chain condition. Willow (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find the postcard image ill-placed, shouldn't it be next to sentence "sometimes discussing advanced concepts with Fischer by mailing commentary written on postcards"
    The postcard has been moved and the description of 1911-1915 period of her life enlarged. Willow (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • do we know of any of Noether's boyfriends? did she have any?
    I don't know for sure, but I doubt she had any. I once heard someone say that when Noether was at Bryn Mawr, there were cruel jokes about how unfeminine she was; but that doesn't directly answer the question, and besides hearsay isn't a citable source. Ozob (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it is never mentioned in any scholarship or sources that I have read, I'd say the question is — im-pertinent. ;) Willow (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the two Noether's theorems explain the connections between symmetry and conservation laws" -> the link only talks about one theorem
    • I believe WillowW explained this on the article talk page – there are in fact two theorems, and she's in the process of updating the linked-to page. (Correct me if I'm wrong, W.) – Scartol • Tok 11:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems to be correct, but doesn't help much. It should be fixed before this article reaches FA, it is a bit of a "subarticle".
    Yes, I dallied too long before doing that. Please review Noether's theorem and Noether's second theorem and let me know if you think the solution is adequate. Willow (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To simplify matters, maybe, we could merge the two articles.Randomblue (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's going to be hard enough explaining Noether's first theorem in under 100kB, once everyone gets done adding their favourite examples/proofs/extensions/provisos/shortcomings/etc. Noether's second theorem is just as complicated and fundamentally different in character, even though they both deal with continuous Lie groups. I think it's just asking too much of any reader to try to absorb both in a single article. Willow (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, but how are we going to solve the linking problem? If the article you have just created is going to expand greatly, then maybe a disambiguation page would be appropriate.Randomblue (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I frankly don't understand what the "linking problem" is. Noether's theorem, when used unqualifiedly, always refers to Noether's first theorem, e.g., p. 546 of this reference. I have removed all references to Noether's second theorem from this article, to ensure that there is no possible point of confusion for the reader. Willow (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • overlinking to: abstract algebra (8 times), ascending chain condition (5 times), field (5 times), group (5 times), ring (5 times), Noether's theorem (5 times)
    My own feeling is that wikilinks serve the reader, not the other way around. We should not make our readers hunt through a long article for the sole wikilink to an obscure mathematical concept. I'm happy to remove an superfluous wikilink if it occurs in the same or even in an adjacent paragraph; but I reject the requirement that each concept must be linked exactly once. I really don't want to make reading this article any more difficult, and I hope that you don't, either. Willow (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree entirely with you, but linking abstract algebra 8 times, for example, is excessive. We should help the reader, but overlinking gives the impression we are considering s/he is stupid.Randomblue (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the hypercomplex mathematics everywhere, I suspect that the average reader won't think that we imagine that they're stupid. ;) I removed a few wikilinks to Noether's theorem, abstract algebra and ascending chain condition. I have to go, though, so would you be so good as to take care of the other three? You can probably handle it faster than any of us, and we trust you to remove the appropriate amount of wikilinks. For my part, I think two wikilinks can co-exist in the same article if they're separated by more than a single screenful. Willow (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • near copy-paste repetition (note also some inconsistencies): "Noether called her thesis Mist (crap) and Formelngestrüpp (a jungle of equations)." and "Noether later referred to her thesis as "crap" and "a jungle of formulas"."
    • Edited to trim first instance of this wording. – Scartol • Tok 12:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • is ====Historical context==== purposely written with four =, instead of 3 =?
    • I assume this was a holdover from some reorganization. Fixed. – Scartol • Tok 12:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • another repetition (close together) : "A Noetherian module is a module in which every strictly ascending chain of submodules breaks off after a finite number." and "A Noetherian module is a module that satisfies the ascending chain condition on submodules, where the submodules are partially ordered by inclusion."
    • Second instance removed. – Scartol • Tok 12:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Noether's remains are buried under the walkway surrounding the cloisters of Bryn Mawr's M. Carey Thomas Library." citation needed?
    • I usually only cite captions when the info is likely to be controversial and/or is not cited in the article nearby. I don't feel that's the case here. (Citation 54 is right next to the image.) – Scartol • Tok 12:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "gathered at President Park's house" is this a relevant detail? What/where is the President Park's house?
    • This refers to Bryn Mawr President Marion Edwards Park, who is mentioned three paragraphs earlier. – Scartol • Tok 12:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    }}

    • paginate all references
    • "the hardest case is when the characteristic of the field divides the order of the group" citation needed?
    • the "Third epoch (1927–35)" section has no introductory paragraph and is comparatively very small
    • "For example, she concluded that every set of sub-objects has a maximal/minimal element or that a complex object can be generated by a smaller number of elements. These conclusions are often crucial steps in a proof." is a bit imprecise and waffly
    You could at least criticize others' prose instead of your rewrite of it. I just rewrote that sentence again after you changed it to the above: it's still as imprecise and waffly and unsourced, but at least it gets to the point, that she didn't just prove something (what the reader would infer by reading your "she concluded that" language) but rather showed other mathematicians how to use chain conditions to prove things. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very sorry David, I though my rewrite was purely superficial. Indeed, I was just trying to remove "other mathematicians" in "show other mathematicians" because this was obvious. Afterwards, I misinterpreted "by allowing them to conclude" as "by allowing other mathematicians to conclude", so I changed the phrasing to make my rewrite grammatically correct. After rereading my edit (which I thought was entirely superficial) I, like you, didn't think it made much sense, so I pointed out the problem here. It reads slightly better now, and the new phrasing will prevent other people from making the same (in fact grammatically correct!) mistake I did. But next you find an edit of mine bullocks, please remember that it was done in good faith. ;) Best, Randomblue (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • "cycles homologous to zero" would go with a wikilink
    We could wikilink chain complex#Fundamental terminology, but I'm not sure that would help the reader.Ozob (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Hilbert's theorem on the finite generation of rings of invariants of finite groups acting on finite dimensional vector spaces of characteristic 0" would go with a wikilink
    I'm not sure, is this the same as Hilbert's basis theorem? That article talks about ideals rather than invariants of group actions, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My impression is that Hilbert never thought about invariants under finite group actions; he only thought about GLn and SLn. "...this [finite group] case of the general problem of invariants was never envisaged by Hilbert himself", page 620 of Weyl, Hermann (1944), "David Hilbert and his mathematical work", Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 50: 612–654, doi:10.1090/S0002-9904-1944-08178-0, ISSN 0002-9904, MR 0011274. Ozob (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Status? What is the status of completing Randomblue's list? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The stuff I consider done, I cap it in "stuff done", just above. Randomblue (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Back in the lecture halls, they never told us that the beautiful theorem that connects symmetry and conservation law was proven by a female mathematician. Shame on those professors. Wonderful article! You may want to add a cite for the Cleveland/Samaria example (I assume this is Leon Lederman?). --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, RHB! :) I'm sorry, though, I didn't even know who Leon Lederman was until you mentioned him just now. I just chose two cities at random; well, not completely at random. ;) Samaria falls on Wednesday because I was thinking of the old story about the person who tries to escape Death by riding from Baghdad to Samaria in a single day. A pinch of exotic locales, where the air is full of spices, helps to wake the reader up, to enliven the otherwise rather technical prose. ;) Willow (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you ever meet Leon, you will find that he would greatly appreciate that kind of wittiness! I really did think that he came up with the example. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note (again): unless feedback from nominators is forthcoming, I'll need to restart this to try to gain some focus on this FAC. This has been bouncing around, now near the bottom of FAC, for almost three weeks, but there are still unresolved, unanswered image queries, a list from Jakob.scholbach, a list from Randomblue, an unresolved oppose from Wackymacs, and a MoS image concern which is capped by Randomblue but unaddressed as far as I can tell. Some clarity and feedback here, as well as regularly keeping the FAC updated and requesting opposers to check back, would be most appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive me for asking, but why do we need to hurry? We're making steady progress, according to how much time each of us has to contribute. The lead image copyright and MoS placement issues have been addressed, I believe. Jakob hasn't written again since (I assume) he saw that the concerns of his Comment were addressed, as I've clarified above. The lists from Randomblue here and on the Talk page are being worked down, but they largely seem like small, easily fixed formatting stuff. As far as I know, Wackymacs is incommunicado and his sole request for a copyedit has been fulfilled. In addition, several of us have been gradually adding mathematical material to meet the requests of our friends and reviewers; for example, Awadewit asked us to explain central simple algebras, which I'm working on. If this article lingers at the bottom of FAC for another three weeks, I for one won't feel ashamed, as long as we're moving forward; you can't rush perfection. ;) Willow (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not asking that the process be rushed; I am asking that the FAC page be kept updated and informed on progress, as I check in daily and it's helpful to know the status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely, Sandy – we know how many of these you have to sort through. My understanding is that (aside from Wackymacs' objection in absentia), the only standing actionable concerns are on Randomblue's list. Image:Noether.jpg has been removed from the article, so any questions or concerns about that don't apply. I'm planning to devote some time to the current concerns (which were on the talk page, which led me to believe that they were independent of FA-ness – I guess I was wrong), but Sunday will be my first opportunity.
    As for the lead image, I had originally placed it on the left-hand side, but then someone moved it over to the right – and I didn't want to get into an edit war. I forgot to raise it on the talk page, but it has been fixed. Thanks for your patience, SG. – Scartol • Tok 17:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed everything on Randomblue's list that I feel capable of repairing, giving my woeful mathematic stupidity. Thanks in advance to more intelligent people who can take care of the rest. – Scartol • Tok 12:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I only just saw this and have read through it very quickly. What can I say! Once in a while I see an article here that brings a smile to my face. My compliments to the author for treating Noether and her work in such depth. One quibble: Kaplansky, Canadian? Well, he may have kept his citizenship, but since he spent some 60 odd years in Cambridge, Chicago, and Berkeley, ... "Canadian" is not the first thing that comes to mind, at least not to me. But, it's not a biggie; my compliments, regardless. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS I just realized as I read some comments upstairs that it is not going so well for this article. Do you need some technical (math or math history) help? If so, please let me know. I'm busy, but I'll see what I can do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much for your offer, Fowler. Actually I feel that the process is going well in general – mostly thanks to the indefatigable efforts of my best friend WillowW. The items just above on the list from Randomblue appear to be the only real deficits remaining here – and I'm not capable of doing much with them (because I'm very stupid when it comes to maths). (Willow's making progress, but she's very busy.) If you're able to add some info to the third epoch section, that would be super. Thanks again! – Scartol • Tok 12:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:39 June 19, 2008.

    Rongorongo[edit]

    previous FAC (19:02, 9 April 2008), earlier FAC

    Self-nominator: All previous issues have been addressed. The main remaining problem had been the unresolved copyright status of the images, under the mistaken impression that this depends on whether an object is 2D or 3D. (A coin lit up and framed in an original way is not PD; the same coin copied on a scanner is PD. The 2D thing is a rule of thumb, not a legal principle.) Although nearly all the photos were ineligible for copyright (original copyright long expired, no original work in their reproduction), this takes months to resolve at Commons, so I have removed the numerous thumbs and moved two of the images to Wiki-en with Fair Use tags (they are actually Template:PD-ineligible). Another objection had been the length of the article; it has now been split in two. —kwami (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - Serious lack of footnotes to most paragraphs throughout. In the past FAC, Ealdgyth said: "I do note that large sections of the article are lacking inline citations, at least to page numbers of the various sources." - This has not changed. Fails criteria 1c of the FA criteria. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Isn't the lack of footnotes due to the use of author-date referencing? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. All I can say is: Wow! I tried using this article months ago for a story I wrote about the Rapanui, and it was all but worthless. This is better than anything that can be found in most libraries! I'll say support, but I don't regularly participate in FAC discussions and am not terribly familiar with the criteria, so feel free to disregard. It's definitely a fine piece of work. Fishal (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose until image problems are resolved. Images such as Image:Rongorongo Qr3-7 color.jpg and Image:Anaokeke.jpg are clearly 3D and eligible for copyright. If you want to use something like this, trace the script to make it into a PNG/SVG and get rid of all the lighting/surface irregularities. Mangostar (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The response on Commons to your earlier complaint of Anaokeke was "Looks two-dimensional to me!". Under your interpretation, all of the photos of paintings on Wikipedia would have to be deleted, since they all have lighting, and they're all three dimensional (they all have texture, if only from the canvas). Do we need to make a PNG tracing of The Last Supper? (Look, I can see a crack in the plaster—that makes the object 3D, so it's copyrighted!) The legal principle is not whether the object is 3D (that's only a rule of thumb), but: Did the photographer frame and light the object in such a way as to add originality to the photo? A photograph of a two-dimensional surface, with only the lighting necessary to expose the film, does not qualify for copyright. (The Last Supper is painted on a building, so it is also clearly a 3D object, but it's common sense that the photo is of one approximately 2D surface of that object. And in the Qr3-7 photo the lighting is that of the display case in the museum, and not a contribution by the photographer.) Neither, for that matter, does a scan of a fully 3D object qualify for copyright. Commons suggests that we crop images of paintings of their frame, to avoid the possibility of a problem. The Qr3-7 photo follows this advice and is cropped of all its edges. (I've noticed that in addition to claiming that surfaces are three dimensional, you believe that pre-World War I photos are ineligible for PD because they're "recent".) If we followed your advice, we'd have to strip a large number of articles of their FA status. kwami (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, why is Image:Roro-I01frottis.gif marked GFDL? Did the uploader actually make the rubbing? If not, it's either copyrighted or PD - an uploader can't make a PD image GFDL... Mangostar (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The uploader works with the archives the image came from, but you're right. As a rubbing, it's ineligible for copyright regardless. Tag changed. kwami (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last thought: the 2D reproduction is a legal principle, in that it was specifically established in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. in at least one US district court, and hasn't been departed from since. Mike Godwin has specifically advised Wikipedia users not to claim that photos of coins are PD, without specifying that distinctions should be drawn between the two types you cite. (I could dig this up if you want.) The threshold of originality required for copyright protection in the US is extremely low. The merger doctrine comes into play where an idea simply cannot be separated from an expression, but here it is inapplicable--for example, this problem could be solved by vectorizing the text alone, as I have suggested. Mangostar (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit conflict] On Commons they specifically state that a coin imaged with a scanner is not eligible for copyright. It's not the dimensionality of the object, but originality. It's simply assumed that there is insufficient originality in a photograph of a painting to qualify for copyright.
    Also, a tracing is not a viable option. Since the script is undeciphered, no-one can know what they're supposed to be tracing, and there is therefore a concern that any tracing would miss essential details, or introduce errors. This is a serious issue with attempts at decipherment. An illustration of what the script looks like needs to be a photo, not a tracing. As I said above, the edges have been cropped, and the lighting is environmental, so this is simply a photo of a 2D surface. kwami (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you insist, I can certainly make a case for Fair Use. kwami (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. Reading the court case, under US law, the issue is originality. The only time "two dimensional" appears is in a report of MOMA admitting that a photo of a 2-D PD work of art "might not qualify" for copyright. That isn't the court's wording. They also make the point that a cast of a 3-D object does not qualify for copyright, even with minor variations from the original. They "must be original, that is, the author's tangible expression of his ideas". When the "point of the exercise was to reproduce the underlying works with absolute fidelity [c]opyright is not available". Posing a statue and giving it dramatic lighting is copyrightable, but photographing the artist's signature on the statue is not. kwami (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Very interesting article. But should you not have footnote citations to specifically source material? Or am I wrong that this is preferred? Also, I don't like the colon in the lead and will change it. Revert if you like. I will look through article more as it seems very good. –Mattisse (Talk) 20:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    O.K. It's a little confusing at first but I see what you have done reference-wise. –Mattisse (Talk) 20:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally find it disruptive when footnotes are used both for notes and for references. I always want to read the notes, but flipping down to the footnotes just to find it's a page reference is really annoying. Thanks for your corrections. kwami (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the problem I am having now is that the article does not seem to be well sourced. Phrases like "tradition has it" are not sourced. There are so many "is said to have" (see my comment on talk page) that even though a source is given, it does not clarify. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've checked all instances of those wordings, and they're all supported by the following citations. kwami (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I thought this should have succeeded last time around, and don't have any remaining comments that were not taken care of in the previous FAC. Now that more parts have been split out into subarticles, one could almost nominate the whole collection. Anyways, per Fishal above this painstakingly researched and well-written article provides the best encyclopaedic treatment of the topic you're likely to come across anywhere. Nice work, kwami & co. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OpposeComments

    • Use {{harvnb}} for references instead of the way you are doing now
    • Really large image in "Published corpus" — needs something done about that. Perhaps a thumbnail and center it?
    • "References" looks really strange, at least to me, because of {{Aut}} usage and no bullets before each item

    Gary King (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You oppose because I've followed Wikipedia formatting conventions? Are you serious?
    Anyway, your citation template is ungainly, the normal-sized image is part of the text, which would be disrupted if it were a thumbnail, and the "really strange" reference format is found throughout Wikipedia. Since when do references need bullets? kwami (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never seen inline references like what is used in this article. Please point me to where it says in the Manual of Style that this is appropriate. Gary King (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to strike out my oppose because this is just beyond what I've seen. It's such a mysterious way of doing it... Gary King (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The MoS directs the reader to Author-date referencing for how this is done. That gives "(Smith 2008:1)" in its first example. kwami (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - A very interesting, thorough, well organized article that is clearly written. There are some idiosyncratic aspects to the style, but nothing that interferes with the pleasure of reading it. (I fixed aspects that bothered me the most.) –Mattisse (Talk) 20:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose—Support 1a. Disappointed after all this time to see poor writing in the lead:

      1. figures or words for two-digit numbers? In any case, read MOS, which insists on one type for centuries. The infobox hints at more precise chronological info than a whole century. And see further down in the article.
      2. "Although some calendrical and perhaps genealogical information have been identified"—Perhaps? What is the uncertainty? It's unclear.
      3. ", even these inscriptions cannot actually be read."—Remove "actually", unless you're contrasting with the fictional, maybe? Even what inscriptions? Unclear connection with the foregoing statement.
      4. "some ... some". Then a tiny sentence. After that, ungrammatical.
      5. "There are a few very short petroglyphs which may also be rongorongo."—There are? Fuzzy.

    Look, this is not FA material. Sorry; please have a good copy-editor lift it to professional standard first.

    And at random further down:

      1. "Due to its scarcity"—two very similar wordings.
      2. "The fact that the islanders were reduced to inscribing driftwood, and were extremely economical in their use of wood, may have had consequences for the structure of the script (Fischer 1997:383)."—Can you briefly explain what effect this might have had on the script?
      3. Snake: "German ethnologist Thomas Barthel believed that carving on wood was a secondary development in the evolution of the script based on an earlier stage of incising banana leaves or the sheaths of the banana trunk with a bone stylus, and that the medium of leaves was retained not only for lessons but to plan and compose the texts of the wooden tablets (Barthel 1971:1168)." Split into two?
      4. The left-side image is messing with the formatting of the text and the lower image.
      5. "Other glyphs look like sea turtles, fish, crayfish, grubs, and so on."—Last three words: MOS discourages such usage as far too informal. Try "such creatures as ...".

    Needs a good copy-editor. TONY (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I hesitate to ask a question here, but I do not understand all your comments above. Here is an example: "Figures or words for two-digit numbers? In any case, read MOS, which insists on one type for centuries." I just read MoS and it said (seemed to say) either 20th century or 20th century was correct. Am I misunderstanding? –Mattisse (Talk) 14:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Where's your boundary between spelling out a number and rendering it as a figure? 18 or eighteen? Seems to be mixed. This is aside from the century issue. TONY (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony, some good points, but the lead is an introduction. It is not the place to explain things in detail. If comments are "fuzzy", they are explained in the text. The centuries have been spelled out as you suggest (I prefer that as well). "Actually" contrast reading with interpreting, though it is not necessary here. [No, I take that back. It is required here. We're saying the contents of some texts can be identified, which most people would assume means they can be read.] This takes care of objections (1), (2), (5). The word "these" makes (3) perfectly clear in context. As for (4), I agree that "some ... some" is awkward, and it's been changed. However, there is nothing wrong with the occasional tiny sentence, especially when its contrasting length has a contrasting function, as here. Following that, I fail to see what is ungrammatical.
    Centuries are supposed to be expressed in numerals, aren't they? See MOS. TONY (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. The MoS itself says either way is okay, but one of the subdocuments does specify numerals. kwami (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Second set: (1) Which are two very similar wordings? (2) I was afraid that would be OR, but it can be read between the lines of the refs. Done. (3) Splitting would require adding "he also believed that", which would be unnecessarily repetitive. The sentence is fine as it stands. (4) No matter how you arrange the images, they will cause formatting problems on some browsers at some screen resolutions. I've done the best I can with a variety of browsers. [Actually, that image was moved where it currently is by another editor, who objected to its previous location. I'll put it back.] (5) Done.
    I think that covers everything where it's clear what you object to. kwami (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Still more precise chronological info in the infobox (1860s?) than the whole century given in the lead. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding.
    Since the info box is for the entire article, not the lede, I don't see a problem. However, the dates are for different things: when most of the tablets were destroyed vs. when the surviving ones were collected. Some tablets were collected after the 1860s, and some were apparently collected before then, but for most we simply don't know. kwami (talk)
    Try this: "German ethnologist Thomas Barthel believed that carving on wood was a secondary development in the evolution of the script based on an earlier stage of incising banana leaves or the sheaths of the banana trunk with a bone stylus; in his opinion, the medium of leaves was retained not only for lessons, but to plan and compose the texts of the wooden tablets (Barthel 1971:1168)."
    But it's not an opinion, it's a belief: perhaps speculation, but more likely an interpretation of people's recollections. So I would have to say "Barthel believed that X; he believed that Y." I don't see how that's an improvement. "And" is the normal word used for compound predicates such as this. kwami (talk)
    Claims in the lead should make sense in the lead.
    Your objection was to "There are also a few very short petroglyphs which may be rongorongo." That makes perfect sense; it means exactly what it says. You objected that the word "may" is "fuzzy", but I don't see how to make the sentence less fuzzy without going into details which don't belong in the lead. kwami (talk)
    The prose is looking better. TONY (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Similar wordings: "due to the scarcity of wood", "due to this scarcity of wood".TONY (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That was intentional, to help the reader make the connection, since they refer to the same thing but the instances were not close together. Anyway, Matisse changed the wording a bit. kwami (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Image concerns resolved, Kelly hi! 01:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kelly hi! 18:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Kelly. People keep bringing up the 3D thing, but as far as I can tell, that's not the point. Copyright law does not appear to hinge on an object being 2D, but only on whether there is sufficient originality. For example, the The Last Supper is painted on a 3D object (a church) and has 3D elements (cracks in the surface, a doorway arch cut through the bottom), yet the photo we have of it has been tagged on Commons as PD-art for 3½ years, and even as a featured picture candidate, no-one objected that being 3D invalidated it from being public domain. They only objected that the resolution wasn't good enough.
    As far as Image:Rongorongo B-v Aruku-Kurenga (end).jpg, the copyright holder of the book gave permission to use the images. They even emailed me higher resolution images in case these weren't good enough. (They are actually PD-old, but people have raised such a fuss about that that it's not worth bringing it up, and I don't see the harm in attributing the people who are making them available to the public.) Specifically discussed was GDFL, but I've since read that GDFL is not an appropriate license for Commons, and so added the second tag, which also fits the usage permission. I've asked Commons what to do with this info, but as usual, there's no response. (It was a mistake to upload anything to Commons, but I'll know better next time.) Meanwhile, there's a link to the copyright holders of the book, in case anyone wants to verify.
    With the two fair-use images where the source is given as the CEIPP, that's because the source is the CEIPP. I don't understand the objection.
    Sources are sometimes only given as a museum, and the photographer is not known. Again, with the Last Supper, no source information was given at all. That wasn't a problem for featured picture status, so I don't understand the problem here. kwami (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Kwamikagami - yes, the debate on the 3D thing can go either way. You probably haven't heard the end of it yet. I don't think that particular issue should keep the article from featured status. On Image:Rongorongo B-v Aruku-Kurenga (end).jpg, if the copyright holder e-mailed you the license, please forward that e-mail to "permissions AT wikimedia.org" with a link to the photo page(s), and they will add an OTRS ticket to the image(s). GFDL is just fine as a Commons license; you may have just read that it's not the best license for content re-users, because they have to print the text of the license with the photo. But that doesn't affect us here at Wikipedia.
    On the CEIPP images, the reason that not adequate as a source is that it's not verifiable. Did a CEIPP employee take the photos? How did we get the photos? Is there an online source? Kelly hi! 20:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I got them from the website of a member of the CEIPP who has worked on this article. I've just checked and have found what appear to be the original sources. kwami (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't heard back from Permissions, but I've forwarded them the copyright email. kwami (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Status? There is still a long list of image licensing concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2, 4, and 6–8 have been addressed. 5 is as much a 2D object eligible for {{PD-Art}} as many of our other Commons images; see Kelly above. 3 is cropped to the point that it should be a PD-Art image. I don't know the source, but have asked Jacques if he has it. 1 is similar, but in this case I doubt Jacques would know. 3 has been on multiple-language Wikipedia for years, and has never been a problem. 1 is just in color. I didn't think that PD requires permanent attribution like GNU licenses, does it? kwami (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I and others did some copy editing to try to take care of Tony's concerns. If there are other concerns I am willing to do more. (I don't know about the image concerns, though.) I think it is a clearly written article on a fascinating topic that draws me in to it the way most feature articles do not. –Mattisse (Talk) 23:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You've already entered a support declaration above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, my concerns have been addressed and I'm convinced this is a great piece of work on the subject. --Laser brain (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Comments The prose seems to be shaping up nicely, but there are some puzzlers that need clarification:[reply]
    • "It is thought that irregular pieces of wood were used in their entirety rather than squared off due to the scarcity of wood on the island." Thought by whom? No citations here.
    Done. kwami (talk)
    • "The rongorongo glyphs are contours of living organisms and geometric designs about one centimeter high ..." Height is normally a third-dimensional references.. if these are two-dimensional, please stick to length and width.
    Actually, for scripts "height" is used. Length and width both refer to the same dimension, along the direction of writing. The third dimension is usually "depth". kwami (talk)
    • "The remaining hair-line cuts were then either errors, design conventions (as here) ..." As where?
    Done. kwami (talk)
    • "On the other hand, glyph 067 is thought to represent the extinct Easter Island palm, which disappeared from the island's pollen record circa 1650 and thus suggests that the script is at least that old." No citation.. who said this?
    Done. kwami (talk)
    • Your commented image of glyphs in "Glyphs" needs a source displayed below the figure. --Laser brain (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    None of our other images have a source displayed. Why this one? kwami (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, even though it is technically an image, it is being used as a "figure" in the article and is displaying interpretation. I'd recommend doing the reader the courtesy of displaying whose interpretation it is and not forcing them to click the image to find out. --Laser brain (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know whose interpretation it is. The photo is attributed to the Trocadéro Museum, and in the legend for this image and another it gives the dimensions according to one Father Alazard, but it would be inference on my part that because those same dimensions were written on the photo it was therefore Father Alazard who indicated the reading direction. kwami (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we talking about the same image? I'm referring to Image:Rongorongo-sample.gif, which is attributed only to the person who uploaded it. So it's Guy's interpretation, isn't it? --Laser brain (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I left one century spelled out:
    described in some mid-twentieth-century publications, was "an early twentieth-century geometric invention"
    It seems odd to write "mid-20th-century", especially when it's spelled out immediately afterwards in the quote. kwami (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment about possible conflict of interest. I noted that User:JacquesGuy is the second most prolific editor of this article. He uploaded at least one image (Image:Rongorongo-sample.gif) that is not sourced in the article and contains interpretations of symbols. Technically it's original research but maybe that doesn't matter since he is possibly a scholar in the field and maybe we can source it to one of his own published works. I also note that one of his works is cited several times in the article. What is the prevailing attitude toward scholars citing their own works in articles? Does it create a conflict of interest because they might favor their own research even if it's not mainstream? --Laser brain (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, sorry, wrong image. These are all common guesses of meanings that can be found in Barthel and other references. Thus the question marks—they're sometimes simply assumed as if they were obvious, but we really don't know. They're more cautious than the sources would require. (The turtle, fish, and frigatebird are almost certainly just that, but we can't be sure what the human figures are supposed to be doing. The "lozenges" etc. are simply descriptive terms.) I'll source the image and caption.
    As for the potential conflict of interest, I certainly understand your concern, and to some extent share it. I've removed a fair amount of material of Jacques' that was personal opinion or otherwise unsubstantiatable, but Jacques is the reason this article ever got off the ground, and he has been essential to separating the wheat from the chaff. Before him this was one of the most atrocious articles I have ever seen on Wikipedia, not much better to a linguist than flying saucers building the mo'ai, some of it quite literally gibberish, and I restricted myself to deleting garbage. One of the problems with rongorongo is that there is so little actual scholarship. Fischer, for example, is extensively cited because his $700 (!) book is so useful as a reference, but he misquotes many of his sources, ridiculing them for saying the opposite of what actually say if you follow up on his references. And then there's that ridiculous "translation" of his—he proposes a single reading, one which no-one else in the field accepts, and he's written up in New Scientist as having "cracked the code". Daniels & Bright (The World's Writing Systems) has a 5-page chapter on rongorongo (2pp of text, 2pp of illustrations, and 1p of bibliography) by Macri, who's a fine linguist/epigrapher, but who has never published anything else on the subject, and whose promised syllabic analysis of RR has still not materialized 14 years later. When I started out, I had no idea who Jacques was, but he was the only contributor (as opposed to copyeditor) who made any sense, and if you check his sources, they say what he claims they say. As part of my research for this project, I joined a rongorongo discussion group of general linguists, computational linguists, archaeologists, and epigraphers, most of them professors at respectable universities, with only a couple amateurs like myself. Several of them use Jacques' website for research projects for their students, one said Jacques is the most important contributor to RR studies since Barthel (in the 1950s) and no-one disagreed with that assessment, and all respect his publications, though they may not buy all of the interpretations which Jacques himself considers to be speculation, and which are therefore only obliquely referred to in this article if at all. Also, I asked the discussion group to review this article as I was writing it, and a couple of them did, though by email rather than on this Talk page. (I'm still waiting for permission to use an image one of them made to replace one I made, but he found an error in the glyph identification.) I incorporated all of their suggestions, but I don't recall any that contradicted what we've inherited from Jacques. kwami (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you've got me sold. I really appreciate the time you took to respond and address issues. I've changed my comment to support above. --Laser brain (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments. The article is much improved from its last appearance here, and much easier to digest for those of us unfamiliar with the topic. A few comments:
      • I see several lines of whitespace after the section header for Writing media. I think this is because there are two images on top of each other and not enough text to fill in. It would be best to move one of the images.
      • I'm also seeing lots of whitespace between the sentence "Barthel speculated that the banana leaf might have served as a prototype for the tablets, with the fluted surface of the tablets an emulation of the leaf structure:" and the quote that follows.
      • "they note that no explorer prior to Eugène Eyraud reported the script" - for those of us unfamiliar with Eyraud, it might be wise to include the dates of his expedition(s) here
      • Quotations of less than 4 lines should not be offset per WP:MOSQUOTE. There is a short one in the Discovery section

    Karanacs (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Date added. All the other stuff is display and browser dependent, and cannot be fixed absolutely. The quote, for example, is four lines as I see it. There's only a single blank line after the banana-leaf comment. Several people have complained about this, and some have moved the image around, only to have different people complain. I see no whitespace at all after the Media section header. This is the case using both IE and Firefox. kwami (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked the article on three computers, and the image spacing is an issue on one of them. If other people have also been complaining, we really need to figure out a solution to this. Since K is considered suspect, you might want to just remove that image, which would solve the first problem. Possibly trimming the caption on the banana leaf image could fix that white space issue. Karanacs (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we should be removing content for aesthetics. The K image is important to show how valuable wood was on Easter Island, something which most of us find remarkable, and something which may very well have affected the structure of the script and therefore needs to be taken into account when attempting decipherment--and a large number of people reading up on RR are interested in decipherment. A little white space never hurt anyone. However, if you find some combination which solves the problem, great! I've tried various things, only to have the problems migrate to someone else. (The complaints, BTW, have been during FAC, not from regular readers.) kwami (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a problem with small font sizes or large screen sizes on a lot of FAs. I just took a look at the planets, which are all FA (and edit protected so they don't get messed up): Most of them either have images spilling into the wrong sections, messing up the section headers, or occasionally have white space when that is prevented. We have white space here because of the {{clear}} template that I used before the quotation. It disappears if I remove the template, but then it looks bad in other ways, and is not as legible. I have no idea what the problem with the K image is; I haven't been able to replicate it. kwami (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've cut some info from the caption. At really small font sizes (9 pica on my screen) there is still a little white space, but there isn't at larger font sizes. kwami (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:39 June 19, 2008.

    LSWR N15 class[edit]

    Nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because this class of locomotive represented an important link in the lineage of the SR Lord Nelson Class, which had provided inspiration for both the LMS Royal Scot Class and the Maunsell SR Schools Class. Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Co-nominator - As Bulleid Pacific appears to be busy with other things at present, I'm co-nominating this article. I'll do my best to improve it in line with comments made, but any assistance from other editors would be gratefully received. Also I'll have higher priorites, on and off wiki, at least for the next few days. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 07:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment -- where the footnotes refer to the same book, it might be neater to remove the book title from the reference, leaving just author and page number. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC) (article contributor)[reply]
    • Comment -- food for thought. I'll experiment. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC) (article contributor)[reply]

    Support Oppose for now. An interesting and well-researched article; issues resolved. GrahamColmTalk 18:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Issues resolved GrahamColmTalk 18:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    but there are many problems with the standard of the prose. Here are some examples:

    • The class had a highly-complex build history that spanned several years of construction from 1919 onwards. -- The onwards is redundant and there are many examples of redundancy in the article.
    • From then on, they became more generally known as the King Arthur class. -- more redundancy.
    • He incorporated a considerable number of improvements, notably to the steam circuit -- Many improvements.
    • Constituting a development of Robert Urie's H15 -- this sounds odd.
    • It was the Urie-designed chimney that was to cause draughting problems, -- This is the first we read of the problem, - The chimney caused problems - is better.
    • a situation revealed with the intensification of the LSWR timetables. The locomotives - - the problem arose?
    • The locomotives gained a reputation of being poor steamers -- for their being
    • with crews reporting steadily falling steam pressure -- and the crews reported
    • which improved efficiency by using less steam to move the piston -- because it used
    • and therefore -- I think one has to go.
    • A larger diameter chimney and blast-pipe were two of the improvements made, resulting in a fast, free-steaming locomotive. -- which resulted
    • What is a valve event?
    • cylinder diameter further reduced -- was further reduced
    • necessitating -- requiring
    • utilised -- used
    • P14 classes, and differed from the Urie batch in using higher boiler pressure and smaller cylinders -- in their use of
    • Whilst -- while
    • their construction in Glasgow gaining them the 'Scotch Arthurs' nickname -- gained them
    • and differed from previous batches in having an Ashford-style cab. -- in their having or and had
    • They were built at Eastleigh in 1926, the smaller tender allowing those fitted to be turned on the shorter turntables to be found on this part -- smaller tender allowed and the to be is redundant.
    • 'From 1926 the N15 class became the first -- In 1926
    • From 1926 the N15 class became the first in Britain to be equipped with smoke deflectors. Several designs were tried, 772 being initially equipped with those of the German style. -- would a semicolon be better here?
    • Upon -- on
    • improving performance yet again -- which further improved performance
    • though -- although
    • regular -- 'common
    • a factor that was commented upon -- which was commented on
    • Despite this, they were to be found in most areas
    • but their high numbers - because there were so many
    • various -- different
    • and the entire class was so modified
    • After a period of 18 months

    There are other examples. Please don't just address these, but get a fresh pair of eyes to do some copy-editing. GrahamColmTalk 17:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Changing to support for a much improved article. Thanks for putting-up with me. GrahamColmTalk 18:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Phew! I'm going to have to wind-up my proof-reading a notch!
      Seriously, though, thank you for providing much food-for-thought. EdJogg (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- OK, found a few bits wrong, altered them, now over to you, Pete! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per image-related issues:
      • Image:SR King Arthur poster 2.jpg: Why is prose alone insufficient for "discussion of construction of the locomotive class" (WP:NFCC#1)? This image does not appear to have anything to do with development; articulation and/or demonstration of an "investment" of £600,000 does not seem to require a fair use image. Image use appears purely decorative (NFCC#8). Image has an incomplete rationale (NFCC#10C and WP:RAT). {{Non-free poster}} license requires "critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself, not solely for illustration". There is no such critical commentary.
      • Image:30783 Sir Cillemere Eastleigh 1950.jpg: Image's source asserts "All Images are copyright. Non commercial use of the images from this section of the Planefacts web site is permitted". We cannot accept non-commercial only images per WP:IUP, WP:TAG and Jimbo.
        • Please read the 'According to this' wikilink below the GNU license, which is an email from the copyright owner granting permission for the image's use on Wikipedia. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • See WP:MOS#Captions regarding punctuation for incomplete sentences. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Got rid of source.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't understand what you mean here. What is a 'bald url'? The articles on SEMG are fairly run-of-the mill stuff for the Southern Railway, with most of the source material being common knowledge, and therefore the site provides a good general overview of various topics. It is quite verifiable.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A bald url is something like either [49] or http://www.google.com, where there is no formatting like Google Home Page. As for the source itself, I'm not seeing any sources given for the information, nor any authority claimed for the author. It looks like a personal or fan site, albeit a nice one. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, resolved the issue by using another source. I think the URL is fine now, being only in the external links section. Is there anything else that needs doing? --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- Personally, I can't see much else wrong with this article, and using the tools provided, the average 18-year old can understand the prose. However, it would help greatly if other editors could actually shed light on any further lapses in prose.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Wow, can you maybe use {{harvnb}} instead of the current referencing method of including the book title in every reference? It makes the references long and hard to read.
    • "Arthur class [1]" — remove extra space
    • In "Locomotive weight", the dashes should be en dashes per WP:DASH

    Gary King (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, references have been simplified for the benefit of the reader. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - image copyrights look good. Kelly hi! 20:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - All the above comments appear to have been addressed. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 10:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, much improved! --Laser brain (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Oppose, a good start but some fit and finish required. Examples:[reply]
    Issues resolved. --Laser brain (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Prose issues:
        • "The class had a complex build history ..." It no longer has a history?
        • "The Southern Railway's publicity department gave the locomotives names associated with Arthurian legend, becoming the King Arthur Class." The phrase dangling at the end is not in a good place, as it appears to modify "Arthurian legend".
        • Terms like "newly formed" and "well received" should be hyphenated; check the whole article.
        • "This was sufficient to achieve extended running on the Southern's Western section, where there were no water troughs to replenish water in the tender without stopping." Avoid beginning sentences with "This" in reference to a previous idea. This what?
        • "When the third batch was under construction ..." While works better here.
      • MoS: Terms should appear in double quotes, not single quotes (example: 'Eastleigh Arthurs', 'Scotch Arthurs', 'stovepipe', and more); plus, you have a mixture of the two. --Laser brain (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response -- the highlighted prose issues have been tackled, although there are still a few phrases I've found that would benefit from re-wording (eg "express passenger stable" !) The exception is the hyphenation, which I am usually hot on, but I need to re-read the article with this aspect in mind.
    The issue of quotes is not one I have examined before, so it is a good point to raise. WP:PUNC recommends use of double-quotes, since these do not affect the search mechanism, although this is also American usage (which may be coincidence?). I have corrected all that I could see, and would agree that double-quotes work well in the majority of cases.
    Thank you for your input -- EdJogg (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response -- Yes, I have just done a second-check over EdJogg's proof-read, and I believe that all issues highlighted here have been raised. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support All of my issues have been addressed and it seems almost all of the other issues raised as well. Well done. Comments I peer reviewed this and am glad to how it has improved since. Here are a few more suggestions for improvement:
      • Why not include the full range of years of construction in the lead, so perhaps The class has a complex build history spanning several years of construction from 1919 [to 1926].
      • Does this combination of two sentences work (2nd paragraph of lead)? Following the Grouping of railway companies in 1923, the LSWR became part of the Southern Railway, whose publicity department gave the locomotives names associated with Arthurian legend; the N15s became known as the King Arthur Class.[2] Avoids three sentences in a row with "Southern Railway"
      • Bogie (as in tenders) should be linked at its first occurrence, in the Urie N15s section (not in the next section)
      • Last three sentences of the first paragraph of "Scotch" Arthurs and Bulleid's modifications need a reference
      • Link cwt to Hundredweight in first instance Further detail differences comprised weight variation: 80 tons 19 cwt (82.2 t) for Nos. 448–452 ... as most readers will have no idea what cwt mean
      • Since Sir Lamiel is the only surviving member and only color photo, could its livery be mentioned in the Livery section (or perhaps in Preservation)?

    I am close to supporting as this looks very good overall. I made a few minor edits too - please revert if they introduced errors Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Response -- Ok, I think I have done this... Please highlight any more concerns. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response Looks good. I linked cwt just now - I also note tons are not linked (and know Imperial and US tons were different, as are Metric tonnes, so a link here would also help). Just a suggestion - still support. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments A train article! How fun! I'm more of a model train person myself - :) Anyway, here are my suggestions for improvement and my questions:

    • Why is there a footnote at the top of the infobox title? That is a bit unsightly. Is there any better place to put it?
    • The LSWR N15 class was a British 2-cylinder 4-6-0 express passenger steam locomotive designed by Robert W. Urie. - Could we link "2-cylinder" to the appropriate page? This goes for engine terms throughout the article - the first time words such as "piston" appear, they should be wikilinked. This helps readers such as myself who play with trains to understand the article.
    • Thanks for the links, but could we link "2-cylinder" as well? Awadewit (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The class has a complex build history spanning several years of construction from 1919 - and ending in? This whole sentence probably needs to be reworked. Is the only part of the history that is complex the build? Is the history over? Etc.
    • The first examples were constructed for the London and South Western Railway (LSWR), where they worked heavy express trains to the South Coast ports and further west to Exeter. - "they worked" seems a bit odd - the examples worked?
    • Following the Grouping of railway companies in 1923, the LSWR became part of the Southern Railway. - Are we sure "Grouping" should be capitalized since the "Grouping Act" itself isn't mentioned?
    • I noticed that all of the directional words ("North", "South", "South-West", etc.) are capitalized. Is this BE? In AE, we would not capitalize them.
    • All train-specific words, such as "bogie tender", should be linked or explained the first time they are used in the article. Please do a quick check for this - I found myself wondering "what is that?" quite often as I was reading.
    • The chimney was found to cause draughting problems in service. - Did the company do anything to rectify this problem?
    • Variants of this cab became standard for all new locomotives and converted tank engines. - Made in Britain? Made by the company Some caveat is needed here!
    • In 1926 the N15 class became the first in Britain equipped with smoke deflectors; several designs were tried, with no. 772 initially-fitted with those of the German style - confusing
    • When Oliver Bulleid was appointed CME in 1937, five locomotives were modified with Lemaître's multiple-jet blastpipe and wide-diameter chimney, resulting in further improvements in performance that enabled these locomotives to operate more efficiently. - Is this sentence related to the earlier smoke deflector sentence? If not, the paragraph as a whole needs to be rewritten, as it consists of two, unconnected sentences.
    • Another criticism was the lack of stability at high speeds, which was commented-upon by Nigel Gresley when they were used on the former Great Northern main line for trials against the LNER Class A1s during the 1920s - Please tell the reader who Nigel Gresley is (why should we trust what he says?) and what are these trials? Help us out a bit!
    • The LNER trials coincided with the visit of number 449 Sir Torre to the Darlington Railway Centenary celebrations in July 1925 - Please explain the context of this sentence to the reader a bit more - it just seems like a factoid at the moment.
    • The first withdrawal, 30754 The Green Knight, began the slow running-down of the class, but because so many engines were constructed, they outlasted the Lord Nelson class by one month. - Again, please put this comparison in context for the reader. I know nothing about the Lord Nelson class - what does it mean to compare the two?
    • Would it be possible to obtain a schematic of the locomotive's various designs? That seems like it would be a very helpful addition to the article.
    • The Livery and numbering descriptions are very confusing. Explaining what a livery is might help! Also, any way to add an image to these descriptions? That would also help.
    • It would, of course, be nice to have the "References" listed in a standard reference style, such as MLA, Chicago, or APA. The rules for how to do this can easily be found on the web. Right now, the reference list is a little disorienting and it is hard to tell, for example, if the Clarke entry is a journal article or not.

    I hope these suggestions are helpful. I did some minor copy editing as I was reading - please fix any mistakes I might have inadvertently introduced. Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for so promptly attending to my suggestions, despite the mayhem that you must currently be living through. I think we can all sympathize. Awadewit (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response A -- This has been subject to debate, and despite it looking untidy, it saves having to reference every detail in the infobox, which would mean complaints from other quarters. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't realize that the note was for the infobox. Awadewit (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response B -- "Grouping" is the generally accepted historical term for this momentous event, though sohrt of writing the entire history of the "Grouping" in this article, I think it is best to leave it as it is. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response C -- Unfortunately this is an issue that may not be addressed because of copyright. Ideally, there would be several schematic diagrams, but the changes are generally more internal than external in the majority of cases, except for the smoke-deflector, blastpipe and cab modifications... --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response -- Thank you for your evident interest in the article. I hope the vast majority of your issues have now been addressed. Cheers! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I note that the nominator has not edited in more than two weeks, so I'm unsure what we can expect for the rest of this nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh. And I just spent an hour copy editing and reviewing the article. *sigh* Awadewit (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lovely. The nominator hasn't been on since June 4. Does anyone want to take over this nom? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never feel capable of taking over something that I know don't know anything about. Could we ask someone at WikiProject Trains? Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I queried Tivedshambo and the talk page at FAC; would like to see someone take this over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Laser_brain just alerted me to your concerns. (To be fair, this page had only one edit between 4th and 13th June!! And now I come back and there's millions -- eek!) The nominator is currently studying at university and I presume that he is undertaking exams at present, hence his lack of recent edits. This year his edits have been in bursts of intense activity.
    I will see what I can do regarding the comments raised recently. I have proof-read the article a number of times, so it is becoming more necessary for independent parties to highlight the faults that I am becoming increasingly immune to seeing. Where there are cites missing I may not be able to help, however I am fortunate in having a very good Model Rail article about the locos which explains the reasoning behind most of the design decisions, so hopefully I will be able to join the remaining dots. Unfortunately, I do not have a huge amount of editing time at present, but I will do what I can...
    EdJogg (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have not been able to edit over the last few weeks as I no longer have internet. This situation will change in two weeks time, however. I am taking note of your comments, and rest assured, they will be dealt with. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have proof-read Awadewit's edits (as requested) and 'had a go' at the livery section (which I had previously not tackled). Please feel free to re-review this section. Colour images would be useful but are extremely rare (and finding suitably-licenced ones even rarer!) It would help if the various railway articles contained adequate descriptions of the liveries which we could link to -- in many cases each would fill an article on its own! A link to livery should be sufficient to explain what one is, although 'lining' is a little more tricky to describe. Other recent comments here will be addressed in the next session... -- EdJogg (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment OK, I've done a once-over with the suggestions above. I once again wish to stress that my access to internet will be intermittent over the next week due to our internet contract being terminated. This is because I live in a student house, and it is the time of that great exodus into the wide world... Anyway, keep up the good work those who are working on this article in my absence. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have linked cylinder in the lead. The distinction between 2-cylinder, 3-cylinder and 4-cylinder locomotives is not really discussed in the steam locomotive article, so I can't do much about that bit. However, I did discover that it included a section called steam circuit, so I have created a redirect to it and linked it from the N15 article. Hope this helps. EdJogg (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    Edward Wright (mathematician)[edit]

    — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC) (nominator; article created by Jheald and expanded by both of us)[reply]

    Comments

    Gary King (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several pages from the same book are used as references multiple times. Perhaps merge them together using WP:REFNAME?
      • Comment: I have tried to do that, but I feel it is more useful to state the page or paragraph where a fact is mentioned wherever possible. — JackLee, 01:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then I don't think you understand the concept of reference names? Please read the linked article; the references will stay exactly the same – only the Reference section will shrink, making it easier to read through. Gary King (talk) 03:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: I think we're not understanding each other. I've used reference names where I can, but sometimes a footnote may contain text additional to the reference, in which case the reference needs to be stated at the end. Footnote 14 is an example of this: "Parish register, London, St. Michael Cornhill, 8 August 1595, GL [marriage]: see Apt, "Wright, Edward", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography." Other times, I've indicated "Parsons & Morris, p. 71" rather than using a reference name as I want to indicate that the information in the article comes from a specific page of the source. Can you point out some examples where you think reference names might be used? — JackLee, 12:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm pretty sure we are not understanding each other, then. References like the following can be merged using reference names so they don't appear twice or more—it doesn't change any of the meaning in your referencing because they are the exact same references: "Parsons & Morris, p. 61." (appears at least five times); "Parsons & Morris, p. 71." (appears at least twice); "Parsons & Morris, p. 69." (appears at least three times); and "Parsons & Morris. p. 70." (appears at least three times). These references that appear multiple times can be merged using reference names. Gary King (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Fixed: Oh, right! For some reason, that never occurred to me. — JackLee 01:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use an en dash for " pp. 550-551" per WP:DASH
    • "per kilometre)." → "per kilometer)." if you are going to use American spelling
      • The article is about an Englishman. Why would it want to use an American spelling? WP doesn't. -- Jheald (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You tell me. There are far more words that are spelled the American way than the British way – fix them. Gary King (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Examples? I'm evidently not seeing them. Jheald (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Some examples (this list is not at all exhaustive): "recognize", "program" Gary King (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks. "Recognized" changed to "recognised". (Not actually wrong in UK English; but eg news.bbc.co.uk prefers "recognise" by 66,000 to 2,600). "Program" not changed: in UK English a concert programme, but a computer program (usually). Jheald (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Okay, that is fair enough. I will cap this now. Gary King (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Comment: Personally I prefer the word ending –ize as it's more etymologically correct, but it's no biggie to me. — JackLee 01:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gary King (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - prose is generally excellent, some things below:

    • Non-breaking space between unit and measurement in the Surveying section, not a hyphen or space, please.
    • In the same section, since the measurements are in the main text, the units should be spelled out, not abbreviated.
    • Same British/American thing as Gary King - change "organise" to "organize".
      • Comment: see Jheald's response to Gary King above. — JackLee, 01:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redundancy: "Wright was prompted to publish the book after two incidents of his text, which had been prepared some years earlier"
      • Meaning would be different. "Some years earlier" correctly implies, say, 4-5 years earlier; "years earlier" suggests much more than this. Jheald (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same as above: "Apart from a number of other books and pamphlets [...]"
    • Same as above: "it corrected a number of errors in the earlier work"
      • Same as above: "a number of" correctly conveys that the number is relatively small. Jheald (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The stoppage has been attributed to a number of factors, including Myddelton facing difficulties in raising fund" -> "The stoppage has been attributed to factors such as...."
    • The first sentence is a fragment.
      • Comment: if you're referring to the first sentence of the "Surveying" section, it follows from the previous section. — JackLee, 01:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I mean the first sentence of the lead. Read the whole thing carefully. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 19:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Possibly it might be rewritten; but I don't see a fragment there (main verb: was; relative clause which ... 75°, describing the book). What are you identifying as the fragment? Jheald (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Apart from other books and pamphlets, Wright translated into English John Napier's 1614 Latin work which introduced the idea of logarithms." - awkward. Suggest rephrasing as "Apart from other books and pamphlets, Wright translated John Napier's 1614 work on logarithms from Latin to English."
      • But that loses the important point about 1614 work - before the book introduced them in 1614, nobody imagined logarithms might exist; it was a revolutionary step forward. Jheald (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about "Apart from other books and pamphlets, Wright translated John Napier's 1614 pioneer work on logarithms from Latin to English." Or you could substitute "revolutionary" for pioneer. I highly disliked the current wording. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 19:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 18:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

          • Comment: I think that would work. I'd suggest "... Wright translated John Napier's pioneering 1614 work which introduced the idea of logarithms from Latin into English". "Revolutionary" sounds a bit hyperbolical. — Cheers, JackLee 14:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fixed: I've amended the sentence as I suggested. — Cheers, JackLee 19:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the images are beautifully sourced, licensed, and described - nice work! There is only one exception - Image:John Napier.JPG has no information on its source or authorship, with the exception of a statement that it came from the German Wikipedia. Kelly hi! 19:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Otherwise sources look okay. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. (Is there REALLY a book called Trigonometric Delights???? Gah... I hated hated hated trigonometry... delights is NOT the word i'd use to describe it!) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think I was quite good at trigonometry when I did it at A-levels – but not having touched it for about 20 years I can't remember any of it! — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 23:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - I think it's great,is well written and meets the FA criteria, but have a few comments/questions on (minor) things:

    • "..on 8 December 1576[2] as a sizar.[4]" - Shouldn't [2] be after punctuation?
    • "admitted as a sizar[4] at Caius on 7 July 1612.[10]" - again
      • Comment: The footnotes are placed after the facts they support. For instance, in the first example, footnote 2 supports the fact that Wright matriculated on 8 December 1576, while footnote 4 supports the fact that he was a sizar. — Cheers, JackLee 19:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • See Wikipedia:Footnotes#Ref tags and punctuation. I'm not to worried though and am happy for it to stay as is. - Shudde talk 23:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: OK. I should point out that "Wikipedia:Footnotes#Ref tags and punctuation" states: "Material may be referenced mid-sentence, but footnotes are usually placed at the end of a sentence or paragraph." [Emphasis added.] It's appropriate to use footnotes mid-sentence when a piece of information there appears in a source different to the one stated at the end of the sentence after the closing punctuation mark. — Cheers, JackLee 00:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Wright was requested by Elizabeth I to carry out navigational studies with a raiding expedition" Should navigation be linked here for a second time when Elizabeth I isn't? You may want to check on your linking, some things are linked more then once and others are not. I'm not fussed if things are linked only once in the article, or only once in each section, as long as it's consistent.
      • Comment: My practice is to ignore links that appear only in the introductory paragraphs. Therefore, the link at "navigational" is the first time "navigation" has been linked in the main article. — Cheers, JackLee 19:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "one writer has called him" - Any reason not to state the writer's name?
      • Fixed: No, I guess not! — Cheers, JackLee 19:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyway those things above are minor, and I wouldn't oppose this FAC because of them. - Shudde talk 12:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - — Rlevse • Talk • 16:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:51, 19 June 2008.

    New York State Route 28[edit]

    previous FAC (23:15, 30 April 2008) I am nominating this article on behalf of WP:NYSR, who did a great job on this. After some copyediting and several tweaks, I feel this article meets all the criteria. Comments are welcome. Thanks, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - I remain a bit concerned about this source: http://www.gribblenation.net/nyroutes/images/photos/routes/087i/087i-09975n.jpg, but given the not exactly earthshaking nature of the sourced information, it's not a big priority. Otherwise, sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Since it's just an image, I don't know how unreliable it can be. I'll try to find another source. Good to hear the rest of the links are good. :) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not so much that that picture itself wouldn't be considered a reliable source, but the bald link to a picture without any text surrounding it, it's hard to be sure that this is a picture of the exit in question. Did that explain it a bit better? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I understand. That little tab on the top-right of the sign shows the exit number, but I don't know if that makes a difference. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but It's still not clear that the picture is of that particular interstate, although nothing says it's incorrect either. Like I said, it's not a big big deal, but something that might be bettered. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though the information isn't amazingly informative, I think we should take it down until we have a better source. Not much is lost but respectability is gained! :) Awadewit (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alrigt, source removed. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Leaning towards support The article has a very detailed description of the route that is relatively easy to follow. Since I don't usually review road articles, I have a few questions:

    • I think there should be a caption under the map indicating that NY 28 is the red line. Currently, you have to click on the map to see the legend.
    • Esopus Creek turns south here; however, it continues northwest along Birch Creek to the former village (now hamlet) of Pine Hill. - This is confusing. The creek turns both south and northwest?
    • These images are not very inspiring, I must say. Is there any way to obtain images of significant places along the route, such as where it first leaves a waterway, Cooperstown, the only part not maintained by NYSDOT, a view of the Adirondack Mountains, or perhaps the terminus?
    • Have there been any major construction projects or improvements to this road during its history other than what is listed in the "Realignments"? It would seem that such information would be important for the article.

    Thanks for taking the time to painstakingly detail these local roads! Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, thanks for the comments. Unfortunately, there's not much I can do about the map. I fixed that senetence about the creek. While the images aren't very good, they're image, and I don't think I'll be able to get better ones for several months. About the history, state rioads generally don't have a lot of information about constructions projects, so alignmtents and realignments are propbably the best we can do. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure why you can't add a caption to the map. What is restricting that function?
    • It would be nice to obtain better images in the future, but I understand that is hard to do.
    • I wonder if state budgets and government hearings would have information on construction projects? That seems like the kind of source you would have to go to for that. Awadewit (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have the computer programing (nor the knowledge of where to get it) to create, update or adjust maps. WP:USRD/MTF is where maps a made, so I'll reguest a new one right away. When I get a chance, I'll look into trying to find more info on history. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should not have to adjust the map itself, only the caption, which can be changed in the infobox. Awadewit (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Julian left a note on my talk page indicating that the sources are too thin to add more on the history, so I am now supporting. Thanks for checking! `Awadewit (talk)

    Support Has some minor wording issues in my opinion, but nothing besides that is restrictive in terms of FAC. TheNobleSith (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Gary King (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Bainbridge)". [6] West" — extra space
    • "West of the Hudson River, the turnpike connected Kingston to modern-day Bainbridge." — Perhaps "The turnpike was west of the Hudson River and connected Kingston to moder-day Brainbridge"? I think that seems better.
    • Perhaps link all of "Village of Bainbridge" instead of the last word because I wasn't aware that the word 'Village' was part of the village's name, until after clicking on the link.

    Gary King (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed the first and third comment. If I reworded that sentence, it would change the meaning, as the turnpike went east of the river as well. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments on images

    Kelly hi! 04:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That last image is a scanned image, and per WP:IUP#Format should be a JPEG, if I'm understanding correctly. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually since it's a map/drawing (especially in black/white) it should be a vector image - "Drawings, icons, political maps, flags and other such images are preferably uploaded in SVG format as vector images.". Kelly hi! 04:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I should have linked to WP:PIFU, which contains a lot more detail on image formats. Kelly hi! 12:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Images aren't my strong point, so I'll try to figure this out. To my knowledge, those first two images were not modified, but are exactly the same as they are on the website. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, this can be a confusing issue. Basically to be considered free content, images have to meet the Four Freedoms, the last one of which is the freedom to make derivative works. Licenses which don't allow derivative works fall under this criteria for deletion. Kelly hi! 13:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, ok. Thanks for explaining that to me. The pictures in question have been removed, so it should be good now. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, 1b. There are some minor prose problems, which I list below, but I was really disappointed at how the narrative doesn't really get off the ground in the History section. It doesn't appear to have been fully researched. In "Old roads" we get some information, but a red link and very little back-story leave the reader without information on construction, development, politics, financing, etc. The next heading vaguely implies that the old turnpike became NY 28 but I'm completely lost by time I get to the sentence about NY 9. This really needs to be fleshed out and we need a clear narrative about what existing roads became NY 28, what was constructed when and how, and so on.
      • "The southern terminus of NY 28 is at NY 32 in Kingston and the northern terminus is at U.S. Route 9 in Warrensburg." I'm fairly certain "terminus is ..." is more proper than "terminus is at ...".
      • What's an "at-grade intersection"?
      • "Not long afterward ..." is too subjective.
      • "Esopus Creek turns south here; however, it once again turns northwest along Birch Creek to the former village (now hamlet) of Pine Hill." Here, it becomes confusing whether you are writing about the creek or the road.
      • "In 1802, the Ulster and Delaware Turnpike was chartered ..." Passive voice eliminates the subject... who chartered it?
      • "NY 28 was designated in 1924 ..." Ditto. --Laser brain (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the comments. I fixed and clarified those prose issues. About the turnpike information, as only about 1/3 of the turnpike's length is now NY 28, it would stray too far off topic to include the full history of it. I'll look for that other requested information, but given it's a state route, I doubt there will be any. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay.. I went through the prose again and I'm happy with it. But, and maybe I'm just being dense (likely), I simply do not understand the transition through "Old roads" to "Designation". It does not seem to clearly state what roads became NY 28, and it's more than one, right? They didn't build any new roads, they just designated existing roads? --Laser brain (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The second paragraph of the "Designation" section describes the roads to which the NY 28 designation was given. Let me know if you think it does not do so clearly enough. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, I don't have any further issues with the article. The prose is on par and available sources appear to have been utilized. --Laser brain (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 18:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    Assata Shakur[edit]

    previous FAC (17:48, 22 May 2008)

    Self-Nomination. This is an neutral, extremely thorough, and well-referenced biography of a living and controversial person. I can now say with a very high level of confidence (having read every single proquest and lexis hit for each of her names) that there is very little notable and source-able information that could be added to this article. In my opinion, the two late-breaking objections from the previous nomination have been resolved: the six other trials/dismissals (though only tersely remarked upon outside of contemporary news sources) have been comprehensively covered and the turnpike trial section has been beefed up to reflect the entirity of the case presented against Shakur. Exhaustive comments have also since been fielded on Talk:Assata Shakur. I hope that you will join me in supporting this nomination. Savidan 21:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Gary King (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Format references like at WP:CITE/ES
    • "Chesimard[2])" — reference goes after punctuation per WP:FOOTNOTE
    • This was correct before; the citation applied to one part of the information in parentheses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, then. This is fine with me, if Gary is OK with it. Savidan 17:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Black , African" — extra space
    • Use en dashes for page ranges per WP:DASH

    Gary King (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your comments. It would appear that the above have been resolved. Savidan 23:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 18:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 1 ("Or according to the FBI" 19August 1952.) If you're using that website as a source for the information, it should give title of the web page, publisher, and last access date.
      • I will remove this image for the time being. You're the image expert: does the fact that it was first published by the FBI make a difference? Savidan 03:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 37 Wolf, Paul "Cointelpro..." first the title shouldn't be in all capitals, and second needs a last access date.
    • Current ref 116 "Williams, Evelyn A. "Statement of Facts..." please don't direct link out to the website or use a plain url for the publisher.
    • Current ref 121 is just an ISBN number, no other information. Needs full bilbiographical information, including page numbers.
      • This ref is not citing any particular page in the book, its only meant to help readers find a book that is mentioned in the article text but does not have a wiki article. I can do everything but the page numbers. Savidan 00:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are current ref 171 & 172 "Farley, Anthony Paul" .. who is the publisher? 22 Cardozo L. Rev? and 11 Mich J. Race & L.? if they are journals, can we spell out the journal names please?
      • Spell them out I'll do, but including the publisher is non-standard, I believe, for a law review ref. Savidan 00:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's fine. I put the "publisher" bit in in case I was mistaken about them being journals. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 181 "Shakur Assata "An Open Letter ..." is lacking a publisher
    • Current ref 185 "House Concurrent Resolution 254" is lacking a publisher
    • Is current ref 188 Water, Maxine "Congresswoman Waters issues..." a press release? If so might say so.
      • It was released by her to HYPE. I've added them as the publisher. Savidan 00:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 189 "Cleaver, Kathleen "The Fugitive ..." is lacking a publisher
    Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments, Ealdgyth. Except as noted above, I have done as you suggest. Savidan 00:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All done! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, some of the images could use a more standardized fair use rationale. gren グレン 09:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have added {Non-free use rationale} to each fair use image. Savidan 15:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I was probably the most vociferous objector during the first review; the article has been greatly expanded meeting my, and others', objections. It's quite thorough, and presents many sides of the story of this interesting and important person. --GRuban (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments regarding images -

    Image issues resolved, Kelly hi! 04:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Assata shakur2.jpg - it's unlikely in the extreme that the FBI is the author of this work. The source,[51] a wanted poster, shows a variety of images that the FBI likely gathered from other people.
      • I have removed the image for now. Does it matter that it was published for the first time by the fbi? Savidan 03:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The copyright remains with the creator. I think the FBI's use of the photo probably falls under the "with permission" category. Kelly hi! 03:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Assatatrial.jpg is a news agency photo from the Associated Press, which unfortunately isn't allowed per WP:NFCC#2.
      • I have removed this image. Savidan 02:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Illu pectoral girdles.jpg should be in SVG, or possibly PNG, format per WP:IUP#Format and WP:PIFU.
    • Image:Shakurfbi.jpg gives a source, but the information on the author is unclear. Does the source say the FBI took this photo? (I'm not seeing in the article that she was actually in FBI custody, but maybe I missed that.) Or is this a product of the New Jersey criminal justice system?
      • The NYT caption describes it as an "FBI photo". Savidan 02:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks - please add a brief note to the description so the question doesn't come up again. Kelly hi! 03:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The rationales for Image:BLAmugshots.jpg, Image:Assatamugshot.jpg and Image:Wernerfoerster.jpg don't really make it clear why non-free images are needed in this section other than in a decorative way. The rationales need to address why they significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic per WP:NFCC#8.
      • I'll beef up the rationales, but there is simply no precedent for considering mug shots to be "decorative". The rationale for the Werner Foerster image is a nearly verbatim copy of the rationale for the Gregory image in the Mumia article, whose use was established by consensus. Savidan 02:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I appreciate the work on the rationales - I'm going to ask around the other FAC image reviewers if there is a more clear standard. My impression (gathered mainly from monitoring conversations at WT:NFC) is that non-free content needs to be kept to an absolute minimum, and that this especially is enforced on featured articles. But I will definitely do some research on this.
          • Thanks for your quick reply and please do. My impression is that a picture of the cop in an article about a convicted cop-killer should be within that minimum. As should mug shots which were published (between the two of them) hundreds of times in the space of 6 years. Savidan 03:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The rationales are much improved in regards to thouroughness. One final thing is that the creator/copyright holder of the Foerster photo isn't specified per WP:NFCC#10a and this isn't clear from the source. Kelly hi! 03:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The photo is a official NJ State Trooper portrait photo, very likely taken by a Trooper photographer in the course of their duties. You can see its no coincidence that many such Trooper photos here are in the same style. Savidan 03:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Looks good, that takes care of all my concerns. Thanks for putting up with the Copyright Inquisition. :) Kelly hi! 03:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If each of the points below is answered with either action or rebuttal, you may take it that I support. Thanks.

    • "her medical care during this period is generally alleged"—the one reference given may be written from what some might call a radical African-American perspective. So, "generally" may not be applicable here.
      • I have added three more refs and changed the qualifier to "often". Savidan 14:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the quote from Rodriguez (ref.93) accurate or should those i's be I's?
      • The current text is accurate. Savidan 14:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Three times the article says "see below", this is indicative of some structural problems. Information should ideally be presented with an intact logical flow.
      • I believe that these are justified. Basically, all of the information that was presented at her trial needs to be presented in the article in the form that it would have been apparent to jurors and those following the trial. However, there is also information that is relevant to the turnpike shooting that was not available in her trial (e.g. Harper's testimony at Acoli's trial after the cases were severed; state police statements that were not from witnesses of the event; etc.). Also, within the trial, there is certain information that is not reported in immediately contemporary news sources; thus, while it is possible to ascertain that such information was presented at her trial, it is not possible to present it within the chronological structure that works best for most of the information. Please let me know if this does not address your concern. Savidan 14:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Similarly, with regard to the pregnancy, after reading that she was arrested in May 1973 and incarcerated, we are then told she was pregnant in April 1974. The reader is left wondering, "Huh? How is that possible?". I would prefer the explanation of such a bizarre situation to come earlier.
      • I have moved the paternity information to a footnote and added it after each mention of Shakur's pregnancy. Savidan 14:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not entirely convinced with the references claiming that Trooper Harper lied. Ref.121 is written by a defense lawyer who is also Shakur's aunt, and ref.95 is from the New York Times "Soapbox" section, which is a section for editorialising not accurate reportage. I admit, I don't have access to refs.45 or 123. Is it possible to use the actual record of the cross-examination to check that he admitted to lying?
      • One of the references is to an investigative reporter who went back and interviewed several eye witnesses to the trial; another is to a university professor; the follow up sentence with the details is just for good measure. The actual transcript of the trial is not publicly available (interestlingly, Williams writes in her autobiography that she had trouble getting it even for the planned appeal). Being as there is no source that specifically contradicts this account, I think that this is substantiated enough. This descirption is also compatible with Williams' description of the trial, but I have decided that an additional ref to her would not signficantly add to the other sources. Savidan 14:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not clear to me from ref.159 that the "7 international jurists" which included Shakur in "a class of victims of FBI misconduct" are officially associated with the United Nations. I am not entirely certain that they are "representing" the UN rather than merely sending an independent report to it (which anyone can do). Please check the printed sources. It should also be made clear in this paragraph that "A 1979 special UN investigation" and "An international panel of jurists representing the United Nations" is the same source and not two separate ones.
      • The two were indeed one in the same. I believe the latter description of their relationship to the UN ot be more accurate for obvious reasons. "representing the UNCHR" is how it is described in the source, which is reliable. I believe this has been remedied. Savidan 14:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is "adduce" used correctly?
      • It wasn't. I have changed it to "ascertain". Savidan 14:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While not entirely happy with the use of vaguely dubious sources (All Hip Hop News, Chronic Magazine, Langston University Gazette [this is a student blog not an academic journal], Revolutionary Worker, Covert Action Quarterly, Final Call News, Talking Drum and Shakur and her supporters themselves), I can accept that these are sufficiently balanced by independent sources, or are not used to justify particularly contentious points. Whenever possible, in the future, sources such as these should be replaced. However, action on this final point is not necessary, in my view, at this time. DrKiernan (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think student university newspaper would be a more accurate description of the Langston Gazette. I have made every effort possible to cite contemporary news articles or published books. Information from other sources was used only when it was not contradicted by or in some other way inconsistent with a source in the former category, or another source of comparable credibility to the source cited, and when excluding it would do undo damage to the comprehensiveness of the article. As more is published on this in the future, it may become possible to replace them. Savidan 14:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. My comments have been addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The article has much improved since its last appearance at FAC and now presents a balanced view of a complex situation. One little nitpick - "prosecution contended that Shakur shot and killed her companion, Zayd Shakur, and "executed" Trooper Harper with his own weapon" - shouldn't this be Trooper Foerster? I also think that the article could be improved by changing the organization of the Turnpike trial section and moving some of the subsections up, but I don't think that should be a barrier to promotion, as it still reads well this way. Karanacs (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops! Thanks for catching that. Since your comment, the conviction and sentencing have been sectioned out. Please don't hesitate to comment if you had more in mind. Savidan 01:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I were writing the article, I'd probably move the paragraph about jury deliberations into the new Conviction and sentencing section, and move the whole section below the Other evidence section. That way you'd have all the testimony together, before discussing the jury's conclusions. I kind of see why you laid it out as it is, but the other way (with conviction at the end) makes more sense to my brain. Karanacs (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll move the conviction to the end. I suppose it makes a certain sense with the conviction being the conclusion and all. However, I don't think all the jury info can be moved into that section. Someone who clicked on conviction on the toc and started reading a bunch of info about the jury selection would feel a bit decieved, and I wouldn't blame them. Savidan 03:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfectly right; I didn't mean the jury selection, but the paragraph about the information that the jury asked to review again and the questions they asked the judge. That could do well in the conviction section, but could equally do well outside of the section. Again, this is the whole "if karanacs were in charge of the world" vision, not a requirement for meeting the FAC criteria. Karanacs (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that makes sense. I didn't see what you were saying earlier. Jury's still out on the rest of the world, though. Savidan 04:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 18:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]


    Nathaniel Parker Willis[edit]

    Self-nomination I'm giving it a shot. Willis is today completely forgotten but was, for a period in his life, the number one celebrity writer of the country. I'm partially concerned about breadth but curious to hear what other editors think of the article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Can you include the publication year in every reference, per WP:CITE?
    • I would prefer that every page number be preceded with p. or pp., but I don't know if that's mandatory.
    • Fill out title, url, publisher, and accessdate for all web references.
    • "in New England about 1630 and" — unlink year per MOS:UNLINKYEARS
    • Consider adding Template:Persondata
    • What currency is used in the article? Don't just leave it be implied, per WP:CURRENCY.
    • "both ways... the two" → "both ways [...] the two" if text was removed

    Gary King (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for taking a look, Gary! I addressed some of your concerns. As far as adding publication years to footnotes, I'm not sure it's necessary and I'm afraid it might be a bit clunky. As far as I know, there is no set requirement for citation style, so long as the article is consistent. I'd say the same regarding the use of "p." or "pp." but I'm willing to hear what other editors suggest! --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Citation style looks fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Good to go. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support with comments: I reviewed the article for GAC and just now performed a minor copy-edit. I believe the article fulfills the FA-criteria, although I'll warrant that the prose may need a sprucing from someone with a more technical eye than myself. :)
    I have a slight lingering issue with the third paragraph in the lead, which begins "Willis had boosted his popularity thanks to his good nature..." in that I'm not sure it's as explanatory as it should be. The full meaning is made clear when one reads the rest of the article, but this sentence is still somewhat vague, I feel. Who noted him for being "effeminate and Europeanized"? Why does that differ from his "good nature"? The following sentence could be more explicit, as well: "As a publisher, he tried to appeal to the taste of the readers (which was?) while supporting new talent (like who/what kind?)." A little more detail would help greatly.
    Also, I added a {{fact}} tag in the section devoted to Willis' relationship with Stephen Bishop; the entire paragraph is uncited and needs verification. Other than that, I think this is a fine article about an interesting, unsung hero. Great work! María (habla conmigo) 15:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking a look, María. I haven't been able to verify the Stephen Bishop material anywhere so I've removed it. I also reworked that third paragraph a bit so I think it clearly addresses what's most important. Thanks again! --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All image concerns resolved, Kelly hi! 22:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments on images:

    • Image:NathanielWillis.jpg has vague sourcing information (only a base URL) and no authorship or publication information. The licensing details also seem to specify only noncommercial use. At only 7 KB, it is also somewhat low-quality to be the lead image on a featured article, in my opinion. Recommend moving the Smithsonian Brady daguerrotype up to the infobox, or possibly using another photo of Willis...there are a couple more taken by Mathew Brady at the Library of Congress here and here, as well as a Civil War image here that may be useful somewhere in the article, though it's a photo taken at a distance.
    • Image:NPWillis-1857.gif - is there an online source for this image?
    • Image:NPWillis-Young.jpg - I see the image came from a 1991 book, do we have any information on original authorship or publication of the image prior to usage in this book, if any?
    • Image:AmericanScenery Willis.jpg is sourced to the Library of Congress but is missing a source link...I was unable to find it on a search. Do you remember the search terms or image location?

    Kelly hi! 20:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Replying out-of-line, hope you don't mind. Re: First image, I added all the correct info (The Knickerbocker, 1857) but I agree it's not the best so I've replaced it with one of the LoC images. Would you mind taking a look to see that I gave all the info I needed? The second image, almost certainly, and that's probably how I got it... I'll see if I can find it again. Regarding the third, I believe that's actually an original portrait owned by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, painted circa the 1840s (still hanging in his home today). I can get further information on that within a couple days. As far as the fourth, not sure how I found it at the LoC, but it seems like it's definitely public domain considering its publication history. Thanks for being so thorough!! --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think that Image:NPWillis-brady.jpg is better - I fixed the {{LOC-image}} template to include the photo ID, and changed the license from {{PD-USGov}} to {{PD-Brady-Handy}}. However, the image still should be cropped to remove the border. Kelly hi! 23:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again! I don't have any software that would enable me to crop anything right now, and I have to note that the FA criteria do not say anything more specific about the quality of images as a requirement to pass. :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I cropped the image - please take a look to ensure it is OK. By the way, Wikipedia:Graphics tutorials talk about some free software you can use if you ever want to play with this in the future. Kelly hi! 00:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are awesome! --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, regarding the NPWillis-young image: Its original author is Samuel Laurence, and it was painted prior to 1850. It was owned by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and still hangs in his home today. It doesn't seem like I can get any further information than that. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand...can you offer any evidence of that? Also, there needs to be an explanation and/or sourcing of the copyright assertion on the image description page. It's not that I don't believe you, it's that copyright information has to be verifiable per WP:CITE#IMAGE. Kelly hi! 21:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, unless I can get my own picture of it, it's hard to verify. The image has the info on its artist, and it's already got it's copyright tag, so there's no problems under WP:CITE#IMAGES. If it's such a concern, however, I'll remove it from the article and hope it can pass this FA review without (it's not particularly vital to the article anyway). --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I would recommend - sorry, it's a verifiability thing. Kelly hi! 21:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If it helps, I've updated the file information. Have you seen it? I'm not sure how much more we can do other than take our source's word for it (i.e. Silverman, who reproduced it in his book). --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! Sorry, if the Silverman book makes that attribution, please state that it the description. Once that's done, consider this concern resolved. Kelly hi! 21:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (undenting a bit) Yes, Silverman gives the artist's name... it's been there since it was first uploaded. All the information in the description comes from that source (with the exception of the artist's life dates). --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments before Supporting -
    • The paragraph that starts out: On June 20, 1839, Willis's play Tortesa, the Usurer has a couple issues. The jump from hanging out with Dickens to being famous is odd. Can the segue be a bit smoother there? Also, can you state that the column he wrote was weekly or the publication was weekly, but not both? How about that he was required to write a column for each weekly publication or some such?
    • There's an external citation to Google books for Pencillings on the Way.
    • Is there an explanation why Willis would buy Jacobs' freedom if he was proslavery?
    • In Home Journal, you have to restate that as of 2008 Town & Country was still being published.
    • Take out "and others" from the list of women poets. You've already named the notable ones.
    • You'll have to cite that Griswold purposely set out to ruin Poe's reputation.
    • I thought it was an interesting article, well-writen and apparently very well-researched. I'm sorry I haven't reviewed it for FAC until now. I hope you get some more responses.--Moni3 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking a look! Regarding your comments:
    1. Good catch. I did some significant work to the paragraphs around that area.
    2. Not sure what you mean here.
    3. Not that I'm aware of.
    4. Done. Is this the proper way to do it?
    5. Done.
    6. Already part of the given footnote (Quinn).
    Thanks again! --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pencillings by the Way has an external citation. I'm not sure how else to explain that. No other link in the article links to Google Books, and I'm not sure that it's appropriate to link to it here, since only portions of the book can be read through Google.
    Ok, my comment about Harriet Jacobs was my roundabout way of asking you to make that section more logical. By itself it seems like a factoid out of place in Willis' life, though interesting. It doesn't really say anything about his character that he freed his servant, but was pro slavery. What does that mean? How does that tie in to the rest of his life? --Moni3 (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was confused because there is no external citation (and, if there was, I was having trouble understanding if you were saying that was a bad thing), but there is an external link. I can easily remove it; there's already a Google books link under "External links". As an aside, it's not a portion of the book, but the whole book. Nevertheless, I'll unlink it. As far as Harriet Jacobs, I think you're reading too much into it: He wanted her employment, when her owners came looking for her, he bought her so he could continue employing her (at least, that's how I read it). As far as I can tell, there's really nothing altruistic about it. Is that more sensible? Or less? :) Thanks again! --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Very interesting article on a man I should have know about. There are a few minor things that you might be able to clarify for me, though.
      • In the lead, it might be good to mention why Harriet Jacobs and Richard Storr Willis are famous (she's a writer and he is a composer). The others in that paragraph are identified by occupation.
      • Any information on his mother (even her name)?
      • Awkward phrasing "1829 he founded the American Monthly Magazine,[9] which was continued from April of that year to August 1831 when it was discontinued.[" - could perhaps become "In April 1829 he published the first issue of American Monthly Magazine, which continued until August 1831."
      • "Dismayed by the "tight purses of Boston culture" - does this mean he was having trouble getting the magazine to make money? I'm a little confused as to whether the magazine went out of business so he took a job in Europe, or whether he closed the magazine so that he could work in Europe.
      • Is that $7/copy in 1835 dollars or 2008 dollars?

    Karanacs (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the vote. I think I've taken care of your concerns and these spots that were unclear, so thanks for bringing them up! --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent corrections - you even answered the one question I forgot to write down (why did they move to Maine). Karanacs (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Another interesting Poe-related article! Thanks! I have just a few comments and suggestions for improvement.

    Thanks for taking a look! I consider this guy's connection to Poe is very, very minor considering his importance as a stand-alone writer. I'm going to reply to each of your comments in-line. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first paragraph of the lead sounds like a family tree - is Willis notable for who he is related to or notable for being an author, poet, and editor? The first paragraph makes it seem like he is notable for who he is related to but the article definitely makes it seem like he is notable for being a magazine editor. Perhaps this first paragraph could be rewritten? Remember, some people only read the first paragraph!
    Some people only read the lead, which is why it's there! Not sure how to write a biographical article that doesn't start with the subject's family. See my next comment. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder if the first paragraph of "Early life and family" could be organized a bit better. As it stands. NPW is born and then we backtrack in time to his parents and ancestors. It is a bit confusing.
    I removed the line about his Puritan ancestry in 1630; not sure where it came from as it's not in the source cited for the next line. This might help your first comment a bit too. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Willis began contributing more frequently to magazines and periodicals. - This sentence at the beginning of the "Literary career" section needs some context, such as dates or motivations.
    The context is in the preceding and following sentences: between 1827 and 1829. Is that not clear? --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Willis arbitrarily refused to print the work of his sister Sara Willis ("Fanny Fern") after 1854 - Why "arbitrarily"? Had he printed it before? Some clarification needs to be added here.
    Hmm... arbitrarily implies there is no reason; that makes it hard to clarify. Even I am confused by this one. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Among his later works were Hurry-Graphs (1851), Outdoors at Idlewild (1854), and Ragbag (1855). Willis had complained that his magazine writing prevented him from writing a longer work. He finally had the time in 1856, and he wrote his novel Paul Fane which was published a year later.[8] His final work was The Convalescent (1859), which included a chapter on his time spent with Washington Irving at Sunnyside. - Are these all novels? Could we get a hint of what they are about since there are no links?
    He only wrote one novel, Paul Fane. I think I clarified this nicely, if you want to take another look ("no links"? What does that mean? I was earlier asked to remove a link to an online version of a work in this same review). --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that perhaps the first paragraph of the "Reputation" section is too flippant - it describes Willis as a static character. Of course Willis was well-liked by his friends, for example! And, he was well-traveled only after a certain point in his life and he was only six feet tall after a certain point as well. I don't think these kinds of descriptions are helpful. The relevant quotations about his being a dandy, etc. should be inserted into the article where appropriate, not all grouped together. We have to be careful not to give undue weight to a few people's remembrances and be sure that we give ample room for the reader to decide what NPW was like from the article.
    I strongly disagree. Willis's appearance and his image were his reputation. He introduced himself as a character to the reading public, and that's what made his work popular. I can clarify this, but I would never budge on including his physical appearance and personality under reputation, nor would any biography of Nat Willis. :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Willis built up his reputation in the public at a time when readers were interested in the personal lives of writers - Why were readers particularly interested in the personal lives of writers at this time?
    Explaining why is difficult. Why do so many people say red is their favorite color? It's just the fad of the time. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The link in footnote 4 does not work for me.
    I removed it; it was only a link of convenience to an online version of a magazine article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Footnote 31 is missing an opening paren
    That closed parenthesis should have been a colon; fixed! --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page numbers are missing from the Sandra Tomc article in the "Sources" list.
    I didn't realize I needed this. I'll take care of it.
    • Is it worth linking to this archive in the "External links" since only UVA people can see it?
    I'll look for advice on this one. UVA has a fairly substantial Willis collection, and there are not a lot of collections out there. I differ to others' opinions. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I look forward to being able to support this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me know if I'm not clarifying things enough. Nat was a complicated fellow. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like Sandy has just promoted the article.[52] Further discussion should probably go to the article talk page. Karanacs (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    New York State Route 32[edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because after working for some time, I feel that its a strong enough article to take a beating at FAC. Any & all comments are welcome, thanks! Mitch32contribs 12:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to consider myself a conominator, as I wrote most of the original route description and took most of the photos currently in use. Daniel Case (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Otherwise, sources look good. Links all checked with the link checker tool. Full disclosure, I checked the sourcing on the Peer Review, but I double checked them again for the FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, they could not be fixed, so I removed the link. Its a map, so it is a RS.Mitch32contribs 13:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I didn't worry they weren't RS's, just that they were dead. Works! All done! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments generally looks good, just some minor stuff to work on.

    • "its starting terminus is at NY 17 near Harriman, and its ending terminus is at NY 196" - more active tone... "it starts at... and ends at..." would sound better IMO.
    • "At Broadway, Newburgh's main street, also NY 17K, Route 32 turns east." - I found this sentence difficult to read, it's pretty choppy.
    • You refer to it as Route 32, NY 32, and "32"... be consistent.
      • That applies to other roads (eg. "While 32 officially remains concurrent with 299")
        • What about Route 32 vs. NY 32? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm following project standards, which say to use NY 32 outside 32 and Route 32 (Route 32 redundantly would look horrible).Mitch32contribs 10:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • As the person responsible for the route description, I've long insisted on being less monotonous and mixing that sort of thing up (also with "the road" and "the highway"). I don't see how switching back and forth between "NY 32" and "Route 32" causes confusion — the article is about NY Route 32, after all. I also think (and I'm in the minority here, I know) that occasionally using just "32" on third running reference, like most people do in casual conversation when giving directions, is OK and easier on the reader. It is very easy to write a boring description of a highway's route, particularly when you're not trying not to. Mixing up your main noun as long as it remains clear is one way to avoid it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Soon after which, it passes Kingston-Ulster Airport" - remove the "which", or merge that with the previous sentence... that phrase doesn't work in a new sentence...
    • "One hundred and seventy-four years after its creation" - why not just use 174?

    And that's all I found; it mostly looks good to me (but then, reviewing isn't my strong suit...). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done - If there's anything else, just tell me.Mitch32contribs 10:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (delayed) Support. giggy (:O) 07:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments regarding images:
      • Image:787 at Route 32 in Albany, NY.jpg, Image:Routes 9 and 32 in Glens Falls.jpg and Image:Old alignment of NY 32.jpg have discrepancies in that they assert photos by Steve Alpert are public domain (a claim I didn't see on the website, by the way), but the license used is CC-by-sa 3.0. Where is support for the PD claim? Where is support for the CC claim? Which one, if any, is the actual license?
        • Here is the link for the attribution: [53]. I believe I read it correctly.Mitch32contribs 22:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't see the words "public domain" or "creative commons" on that page? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, do you know the correct license? Images are not my cup of tea. This can easily be solved with a fixed license.Mitch32contribs 22:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • See MOS:FLAG#Help_the_reader_rather_than_decorate: Why are all of the shields in the infobox and "Major intersections" section necessary? Why, for example, do we need the redundancy of a 17 shield next to text of "NY 17"? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As part of this, it follows US Roads standards. If you want to comment, bring it at WT:USRD.Mitch32contribs 22:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • This article is at FAC. I've brought the issue up here. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Only reason is that its done in every road article.Mitch32contribs 22:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Which is true, it is. But no one mentioned this when New York State Route 174, nor Interstate 355 got promoted. It hasn't been an issue with British highways like A500 road, a GA, or M62 motorway (also featured). My take: We do this because a) the road shields are all PD and b) it's helpful when you're parsing text. The different shape of the NY state highway shield and the US highway shield register faster to some readers' brains than the corresponding text does. Is FAC really the right place to bring up what one project has adopted as a policy for itself as long as it doesn't contradict WP policy as a whole?

              Honestly, I don't find them redundant. If we just had shields, non-US readers would be confused as to the different shapes; if we just had text, nobody would read the junction list. My take. Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

              • And you can't link the image to the article. Not yet, anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Update: I have added two very recent images to the article, one of replaces one of the two images in any event. Daniel Case (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • "Catskill Point, in 1820, built a short causeway to an island named Bomptjes Hoeck.[9]" — Perhaps "In 1820, Catskill Point built a short causeway to an island named Bomptjes Hoeck.[9]"

    Gary King (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Is that little images in the infobox helpful? It is redundant. --Efe (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And in the columns Roads intersected and Notes under Major intersections? --Efe (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They're put there for a reason. The reason is to give a better idea of what the road intersects. This is done in every single road article on Wiki, and if this gets changed, the whole project will be in havoc figuring out what to do. Also, I completely concur with Daniel Case. Why didn't these come up at my prior FAC's and USRD's 8 prior ones? Mitch32contribs 10:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For example is this: I-87/Thruway. The words already explained what is intended. No use at all. --Efe (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That one, where it says to I-87/Thruway has actually been removed because it does not prove a real specific point.Mitch32contribs 10:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, I still don't see any importance of those little images. Like writing prose, those correspond flowery words. --Efe (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we need to worry about flowery prose or anything like that in the infobox. This has project wide consensus and I concur with Mitch and Daniel's reasoning above. I don't find them redundant; rather, quite useful. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Having the shields assists readers who would recognize the shield more than the text. In any event, this isn't the place to argue about it, as it's irrelevant to the quality of the article. As I've said before, FAC is a discussion to determine if an article meets the FA criterion, not about personal preference. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My take is that this is a non-issue. Nothing about the shield usage impacts upon FA criteria. It's a settled practice in the US, UK and Canadian roads articles. In showing the NY 32 article to a coworker and asking her opinion about the issue, her thought was that it gives information visually. To paraphrase her, "that way you know if it's a US Highway or an Interstate or whatever." Several recent FACs have promoted USRD articles recently without mention of the shields in the infobox (I-355, Chickasaw Turnpike, NY 174, I-70, I-15, M-35, NY 175) so for what it's worth, past precedent and project consensus sides with retaining them. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, no worries. Maybe its just me who see it very unnecessary. --Efe (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - What a joy it is to read a well-written article on a road that I frequent. (Perhaps keep that in mind when counting my support) I also never thought that this much could be written about what amounts to a local road, and not a major interstate highway. Just a few minor suggestions.

    • Harriman to Newburgh: I am quite familiar with the five-lane intersection in Vails Gate, known as the Five Corners. It is complicated, but if I had to choose a word to describe it I would say congested. Here's a link for you.[54] The Five Corners name may be worth a mention, but that's your call.
    I have had the experience of driving through this intersection on the way to work in the morning too. I guess we can call it congested, although most of the article would be better material for the main Vails Gate article. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • New Paltz to Kingston: "1930 New York Times article detailing the 1930 renumbering" Two 1930s here. Try to adjust one of them.
    • "From Rosendale, NY 32 climbs up out of the Rondout valley" I'm not certain about this, but I believe valley should be capitalized.
    I guess we could do that ... I got about 28,500 Ghits starting with the school district, so it does have some currency. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Designation: A block of references [3][16] is not after punctuation.
    • Suffixed routes: Refs here aren't after punctuation, although this may be intentional. Giants2008 (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Very good article, compliments to the writers :) Mojska all you want 19:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Image concerns resolved, Kelly hi! 12:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments on images

    • Image:New York Route 32 map.png seems to be a derivative work of another map. Any idea what this was based on? Or did the creator really make this all from scratch?
    • The other images all look great for sources and licenses. I particularly like the geocoding found on most of them, this is an excellent idea for images in a highway article. I wish more photographers took the trouble to do this. Kelly hi! 03:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • To reply, User:Stratosphere created that and MANY more maps using cartography software he owns and freely available GIS frameworks from the various state/federal government agencies, so yes, he really did make it from scratch in the modern cartographic sense. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sounds good, thanks! Nice work again on the image copyrights. Kelly hi! 03:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • And just to further explain, the information on maps themselves cannot be copyrighted (save to a discretionary degree often used to prove infringment, like how far upstream certain watercourses are shown). Only the expression of that information, such as the color scheme, can be. Daniel Case (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, absolutely. Sorry - I had recently dealt with some copyvio maps on Commons, where someone had made some minor changes to copyrighted maps and claimed the resulting work as their own. This one is obviously fine. Kelly hi! 16:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per concerns originally noted:
      • Image:Routes 9 and 32 in Glens Falls.jpg and Image:Old alignment of NY 32.jpg are still being used. Assertion of public domain is patently false. Source explicitly requests/requires attribution. A public domain work, by definition, cannot require attribution. Further, site does not assert a license. The {{Attribution}} template is not appropriately applied, as the source makes no statement one way or another about derivative or commercial works. In the absence of the author indicating a specific license, these must be explicitly stated to be allowed if we are to apply one for him (i.e. the attribution license). This can be resolved by emailing the author and filing an OTRS ticket, per WP:COPYREQ.
      • Per MOS:FLAG#Help_the_reader_rather_than_decorate. What other articles do and implications of removing shields from this article thereon do not matter. This article is being evaluated against the FA criteria. Criterion 2 says "It follows the style guidelines", and links to MoS. MOS:FLAG states "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style". As the FA criteria are currently worded, MoS compliance is mandatory; MOS:FLAG is a part thereof. Further, the FA criteria require "professional standards of writing and presentation". The shields are redundant (shield design corresponds to the letter prefix) and are not reasonably expected to be meaningful (beyond what is already provided by text) to either Americans or foreigners. Shields reduce load time, are distracting, unprofessional and unnecessary. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, the shield pictures don't have to be there, but they are on the rest of the USRD FAs. Granted, me bringing that up does violate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but what I am trying to say is, with all these FAs passed, it apparently does not affect the article's compliance with the FA criteria. The purpose those images serve is to allow the reader to quickly identify a route, so MOS:FLAG#Help_the_reader_rather_than_decorate does not apply here. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You know, maybe Elcobbola has a point. The intersection lists in the infoboxes are actually somewhat redundant, given that we have a full table further down where I think the use of the shields could be more easily defended. MOS:FLAG was written because people were (and still are) overusing those little flag icons. And I see the connection

            Perhaps we can just get rid of the infobox "major intersections" list (the criteria for which we've never really had consensus on — first it was "all interstates, freeways and US routes", then it was "to illustrate the progress of the highway through different regions" which I never got and is, indeed, somewhat redundant when you've already got a map. Taken with this "commonscat in infobox" thing, which again I never got and seemed to be unique to USRD, it's yet another illustration of the insularity of the USRD project as a whole that the ArbCom recently pointed out. I'll at least put that down at the end. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

            • I wouldn't mind seeing the intersections list in the infobox done away with, but I got the impression that Elcobbola was referring to the shields in the major intersection chart. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Addendum: I made all the edits to address these issues save for the shields at the bottom of the infobox, which come from the template code and would have to be remedied globally. As for the intersection list, I have always thought that for long roads that table should be spun off as a separate list article anyway (from NYSR, see U.S. Route 20 in New York in particular ... come on, that adds five extra pages to the printout that no one but road geeks really need) and maybe now would be a good time to start. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (undent) Firstly, thank you for addressing the images with licensing issues; that was my primary concern. Again, what other FAs do or have done is not germane, as they were not necessarily scrutinized for this issue. Each FA candidate needs to stand or fall on its own merit in regards to the criteria. I hope we can make steps towards, at least, compromise and implications, if any, on other road articles can be addressed in alternative, appropriate venues.

    I am happy with the infobox; I realize there are technical limitations to the template and the remaining shields therein are not a concern. The "Major intersections" section does indeed remain problematic. I think there is validity to the idea that it is information overload (i.e. unnecessary detail) and the information may be better suited to its own list article (perhaps you could get two featured "articles" out of a split). As it is, however, there seems to be reasonable argument to be made that it violates WP:NOT#STATS. Are all of these intersections truly major and is their listing absolutely necessary to have a compressive understanding (remember, comprehensive is only the coverage of all major facts and details)? If not, would it be possible to select some that are more notable/important than others and cover them in a prose format? Alternatively, if all are indeed needed, would a (perhaps blank) shield for the first instance of a given road type (NY, CR, I) be sufficient? Other suggestions? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • There is a precedent against separate articles for the junction tables. The use of junction tables has been proliferated across all of WP:HWY (especially see WP:ELG) and there would be a massive loss of data if they were removed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What, exactly, would be lost by removing the intersection lists from all surface-road articles? (ELGs for limited-access routes are different; I can see keeping them). Per the discussion I've opened at WT:USRD, the only information unique to those tables within the article is the mileages, and frankly that's rather trivial. Almost all other information in those tables can easily be included in the prose route description. Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be clear, that suggestion was not per me; I'd support it, but I'll leave that to the road folks. The shields, however, need to be resolved. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you be up for either of the following:
      • If a road is repeated in the major intersections chart, it does not need a shield the second time and after.
      • Remove the shields completely.
    • Your decision would be useful, but go ahead and think. The definition of a "major road" is ones that are either, state-maintained roads, former state roads, U.S. Routes and Interstates. County Routes are usually not added.Mitch32contribs 19:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • For now, pending the lack of any consensus on removing the junction table entirely, I think we should just remove the shields. Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — Here is my take on the recent issues that popped up recently. It is my understanding that an infobox is a summary of the information contained in the article. If that understanding is correct, then the summarized list of junctions and the termini is appropriate to be included. As for the shields, there's a technical issue at work. The preferred method would be to display:
    in Marquette

    in an infobox but have the shields be clickable links to the articles. Since clicking the shield graphics brings up the image page and not an article, there's the redundancy. As to the value of the shields, they do provide a valuable reference point. Some of the roads articles use a state highway in another state as the terminal junction as the subject highway meets the state line. State highway markers are different in different states.

    I've seen military articles though that use as many (or more) actual flags in the infobox to illustrate the nations/states on each side of a war or a battle. Given this usage, if the shield objection on highway articles is upheld, then I suggest WP:MILHIST needs to be contacted on their usage of flags in infoboxes.

    As a secondary argument, I will say that MOS:FLAG doesn't exactly apply here. MOS:FLAG deals mostly with flag graphics. As to its application to other graphics, shield graphics should only be in use in the infobox and junction/exit lists, not the prose. It's the opinion of this editor that the graphics are not just "window dressing". They do provide a graphical/visual point of reference. In discussing this issue with a coworker who does not edit Wikipedia, nor is she a "roadgeek", her expressed opinion was that it helps emphasize the difference between Interstates, US Highways, state highways, and in the rare, notable cases used, county highways. If a non-editor who does read finds utility in including them, then I argue others do as well. If nothing else, this is about making the best encyclopedia for the readers. WP:IAR does state: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." (emphasis in original) If MOS:FLAG is preventing highway articles from providing the best information to the end-user, then we should apply IAR.

    As to the issues discussed about the commons cat in the infobox, {{infobox road}} is used by more than US articles. It is not a purely WP:USRD template. A simple change to the template can be made if needed and I don't honestly care either way. If it streamlines the infobox and complies better, I say pull it from the template.

    That's just my three cents on the issue. Imzadi1979 (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've asked some MilHist coordinators to weigh in here (the MilHist infoboxes, to my eye, aren't nearly as cluttered). Pulling Commons from the infobox shouldn't present a big problem (should it)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant section of MOS:FLAG states "Flag and other icons are commonly misused as decoration" (emphasis mine); it is absolutely relevant in word and spirit. I've raised the issue because I feel the shields -- in their current use and quantity -- are a detriment to the article for aforementioned reasons; IAR, therefore, is not applicable, as retention of the shields is not necessary to improve or maintain Wikipedia. What other projects or articles do is irrelevant; we are discussing this article. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Elcobbola, I did remove the shields from NY 32's Major intersections chart, if that's not enough, tell me what else there is to do.Mitch32contribs 14:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolve the merge issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just contacted Daniel Case in request remove the tag as there is precedent against the proposed merge.Mitch32contribs 15:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Update - The tag has been removed. Anything else?Mitch32contribs 15:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You meant split, not merge, but I'd like to know (although this may not be the place) what the precedent was. The only time I recall it being discussed was by JA10 and myself re U.S. Route 9 in New York; I cited the fact that in the rivers and bridges projects we've routinely split off the "List of crossings of ..." articles for what I see as similar reasons, and he said that was worth considering with the long junction list (diff later, when I can find it). Daniel Case (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#Transportation. --Rschen7754 (T C) 16:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine. As I've said, this discussion has led me to think that the intersection lists are superfluous to begin with and that articles about surface roads could do without them. Daniel Case (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You would be willing to throw out other people's thousands of hours of work and the added information that the lists provide? --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First, that would include some of my own work. Second, we've discarded lots of things that people have worked hard on because they didn't fit with policy, or a changed policy, in the past many times before (ask a lot of fair-use images no longer permitted, or look through deleted articles and read the many "X in popular culture" articles.). Third, see WP:EFFORT. Fourth, as I said before the information in the intersection lists is arguably either redundant to what is or could be included in the route description or is trivial and indiscriminate and doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. Fifth, there are plenty of external roadfan websites that do provide or aspire to provide the information those lists contain that we either could link to or already do (in the instant case, see here). Daniel Case (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My take on this issue is that we are writing an encyclopaedia for the readers. The guidelines are only there to live up to or exceed the readers' expectations; us editors do not need to be too insular to those guidelines, as they do mention that exceptions exist. If casual readers that do not have the MOS memorised word-for-word makes a comment about keeping the shields (for example), then that comment is something to think about. --O (谈 • висчвын) 00:31, 15 June 2008 (GMT)
    The article currently has an uncluttered infobox and the split tag has been removed; has anyone pinged Elcobbola to see if he is satisfied? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (indent reset) There seem to be two issues that people are bringing up here: 1) the shields and 2) the major intersections section. The shields may not be that useful, and in truth we may actually gain something over removing them as there are editors that edit war over shields. (not naming names, but I think we all know who...) However, the major intersections section gives the reader a general idea of how far exits / junctions are apart on the route. Sure, you could weave it into the prose, but the information would not be nearly as accessible. Many people are visual and need to see the table. So in summary, I would be willing to support removing the shields in the sense of compromise, but in no way would I support the removal of the major intersections section as I see no good reason to throw out hours of people's work. You have not effectively shown how this is indiscriminate information. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd be open to at least eliminating the shields, for exactly the reason you mentioned (And yes, I know exactly what and whom you're referring to. This might be a better solution to that issue than anything the ArbCom came up with). Daniel Case (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The MilHist group has guidelines on flags and their article infoboxes aren't as cluttered as this one was (IMO), so differences/similarities may be worth examining at least. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I personally think the volume of shields is an eyesore—untidy and intrusive. Sorry, guys, --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Weighing in late with my opinion here, but oh well. :-) In general, your average traveler identifies routes first by either name or number. Most people don't know the practical difference between "the 101" and "the 5", so the shield helps identify what the route is (U.S. Route vs. Interstate) besides the fact one is linked to US 101 and the other, I-5. The short form of my argument is; the images do happen to serve an important purpose - assistance in identification. —Rob (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Some paragraphs in the history section are not focused. Dabby (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you point to specific examples? --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    History - Old roads section. Not focused enough. Dabby (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is it not focused enough? At a FAC you need to be pretty specific so that we know you're not making up problems with the article and so that we know you know what you are postulating. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is specific - that whole section needs to focus on the route, not the stuff happening around it. If you wanted to be even more specific, I would say that the article should not make reference to the business growth and expansion just because the route was built. Dabby (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But this is the effects of the route - which is what an encyclopedia is about - an encyclopedia is supposed to be connected. This is what differentiates an encyclopedia from a dictionary. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "In 1820, Catskill Point built a short causeway to an island named Bomptjes Hoeck." How is this related to the NY 32? It isn't even close to the southern terminus of the route. Even an encyclopedia like Wikipedia wouldn't be that broad. Dabby (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not related at all... if you take it out of context. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean, exactly? Dabby (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, Dabby, that sentence has been removed.Mitch32contribs 10:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dabby, do you have any more concerns about the Old roads section? I see some repetitive phrasing, and am concerned that informal phrasing like "closed its doors" when speaking of a road may be lost on readers for whom English isn't a first language.
    • Route 32 was once made up of several privately-owned turnpikes that stretched throughout New York. A stretch from Catskill to Cairo was once part of the Susquehanna Turnpike. ... The turnpike closed its doors after 1899. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Couple sentences are not transitionally smooth. For example, "The turnpike closed its doors after 1899. In 1974, the turnpike was added to the National Register of Historic Places." It talks about the occurrence of "closing its doors" in 1899, then goes straight to 1974. Anything we can do to smooth out those two sentences? Dabby (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, it should swing better to your liking.Mitch32contribs 22:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - I cannot support this article for promotion at this time. End users may or may not immediately grasp the various abbreviations in use for the different classes or types of highways in the US or other countries. Removing the shields has eliminated a visual clue akin to the accepted usage of flag icons in other articles and until restored I oppose promotion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support per the following:
      • 1A: article is indeed well-written. Roads tend to be seen as mundane objects; despite this inherent obstacle, article maintains reader interest (i.e. is engaging). B: Although not an area of personal expertise, information reasonably expected to exist and warrant inclusion appears to be present and covered in sufficient detail. C: Article is reliably sourced. D) No neutrality concerns. E) No stability concerns (split proposal removed - and not really germane to this criterion anyway)
      • 2: Lead, structure and citations appear to all be in compliance with the criterion. Removal of the shields has brought MOS compliance, enhanced visual appeal (i.e. "professional standards of ... presentation") and enhanced readability. I find the Major intersections much more legible and functional. Icons, like multiple citations, [1][2][3][4] disrupt the flow and, more importantly here, accessibility. Readers knowledgeable about the meaning of the shields in the first place seem reasonably expected to understand the abbreviations.
      • 3: No image concerns.
      • 4: Article is of appropriate length. Major intersections section has prima facie appearance of excessive detail. However, comment above "defining" major roads establishes some degree of relevance and necessity to maintain comprehensiveness. This section is relevant, well-organized and its length does not interfere with the readability of the article. Ultimately, it seems an entirely reasonable supplement (i.e. no criterion 4 violation). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, concerns addressed. Great work! --Laser brain (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Oppose, 1a. The prose is just OK in parts, very choppy and not engaging. I found lots of problems early on. Attention from a solid copy-editor is needed.[reply]
    Issues resolved. --Laser brain (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lead is actually the worst of the prose; it should represent the best and invite the reader to go further. Very choppy—almost every sentence and phrase begins the same way (e.g., "It is", "it starts", "it ends", "it connects", "NY 32 joins", "NY 32 shares", "NY 32 is", etc.). Variously substituting "the road" and "it" for the subject does not make for interesting prose. — Laser brain 16:45, 16 June 2008 — continues after insertion below
        I'm not sure you can avoid a lot of that since the introduction is talking about Route 32 so a lot of the sentences would have subjects that refer to Route 32. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polaron (talk • contribs) 17:01, June 16, 2008
        • Ahem ... A lot of the problems with the intro seem to be the result of some inadvertent editing by committee; I just tightened everything up. Here you refer to one of the difficulties of writing road articles: the need to avoid repetitious and monotonous reuse of the same titular term. To avoid boring the reader to death, I have tried to mix up "NY 32" (a locution more suited to print than speech) with "Route 32" (what most people use in casual conversation). I don't think this creates that much confusion since there is no other Route 32 (well, unless you count some county routes in other regions of the state) in New York. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The road passes through the scenic Catskills ..." "Scenic" is POV that makes it sound like a tour guide. Does it pass through quaint towns as well? :)
        • I think the pictures prove that point, per WP:OI. That was what I had in mind when I took them. (And does the picture of New Paltz not make it look quaint? I've always thought it was. Busy, bohemian, but quaint.) Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "NY 32 was once part of several privately-maintained turnpikes including the Orange Turnpike ..." It was one of them, perhaps, but surely not part of them.
        I don't understand why it can't be part of these old turnpikes. The turnpikes mentioned do not consist of only Route 32. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polaron (talk • contribs) 17:01, June 16, 2008
      • "Route 32 begins where NY 17 leaves ..." Why "Route 32" now instead of NY 32 as we're taught in the lead?
      • "On the right is Woodbury Common Premium Outlets, opposite the Central Valley Elementary School of the Monroe-Woodbury Central School District." Tour guide again. "On the right"? Right of what?
        One would assume it was the road. With what is the point of reference getting confused with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polaron (talk • contribs) 17:01, June 16, 2008
        • I'll change this to to "east". Compass directions are always better than "right" and "left". Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Beyond the mall, site of many major traffic jams ..." The mall is the site of traffic jams? Why relevant?
        • See Woodbury Common Premium Outlets. Again, this is probably better discussed in a future section I'm thinking of called "issues" or something like that that would discuss sections of the road with chronic traffic issues where some significant changes might be made (New Paltz, for one, has been thinking of trying to make its section of 32 a one-way street to alleviate congestion). There are plans being floated that would alter traffic patterns at the southern end of 32 (the bottleneck of access to and from Woodbury Commons) on major shopping days like Black Friday. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Beyond Highland Mills the road bends slightly west upon reaching the southwestern foot of Schunemunk Mountain, the highest in the county." As written, the "foot" is the highest in the county. --Laser brain (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comments, looking much better but a few other fixes needed:
      • "This finally bends slightly north to East Chester Street near the city limit, where US 9W again comes in from the south ..." Did there used to be a previous description of 9W "coming in" from the south? I don't see it now. Before that we have "NY 32, however, turns north again, beginning the first of several concurrencies with US 9W." and then "... NY 32 separates from US 9W and heads northwest."
      • "At what seems to be a conventional four-way intersection regulated by a traffic light, both highways turn, and it is necessary to turn to the right ..." Another relative.. please check the whole article and use absolute directionals.
      • "It enters town as Boulevard ..." Do you mean the street is named Boulevard?
      • "... where it splits onto ..." Things normally split into two things, not split onto one thing. As written, the road splits into two pieces and both pieces become Greenkill Avenue. Is that accurate?
      • "Route 32 has had several minor reroutings in its 75+ year lifetime." I'd prefer something other than "75+" which is inaccurate and will become increasingly so as the article ages.
      • For your table of data, a footer row with sources would be much preferable to two footnotes in one heading. I think I've harassed other road article nominators into doing this. --Laser brain (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    Brian Horrocks[edit]

    Self nomination. This has recently passed a WP:MILHIST A-Class review. The subject is a general who commanded corps in a few of the key battles of World War II. Leithp 08:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Current ref 92 to an article on the IMDb dead links. Also, it needs to have a title, not just a tinsy little link.
    • Current ref 93 needs a title on the link.
    Otherwise sources look good. Other links all checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That should be both links fixed. Leithp 13:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All done! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    support - seems ok. --Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 15:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Has continued to improve since I reviewed it for GAN. Absolutely no objections from here! Cheers! Cam (Chat) 02:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. However I have some recommendations which I hope will be addressed - apologies for not reviewing at earlier stages when I could've brought them up:

    • I think the intro can be improved a bit. Currently we have:
    Lieutenant-General Sir Brian Gwynne Horrocks KCB, KBE, DSO, MC, (September 7 1895 - January 4 1985) was a British military officer. He is chiefly remembered as the commander of XXX Corps in Operation Market Garden and other operations during the Second World War. Later in life he gained further fame as a television presenter and as Black Rod in the House of Lords.
    Horrocks had an eventful life in which he served in both World Wars and the Russian Civil War, was a prisoner of war twice, competed in the 1924 Paris Olympics and presented a television programme. In 1940 he commanded a battalion during the Battle of France and it was then that he first served under Bernard Montgomery, the most prominent British general of the war. [...]
    • I find "had an eventful life" a bit trite, the reader can discern this from the info provided. Also the first sentence of the second para partly summarises what's been said in the first, like a summary of a summary (e.g. about both wars and the TV show). I suggest the following combination might work better:
    Lieutenant-General Sir Brian Gwynne Horrocks KCB, KBE, DSO, MC, (September 7 1895 - January 4 1985) was a British military officer. He is chiefly remembered as the commander of XXX Corps in Operation Market Garden and other operations during the Second World War. He also served in the First World War and the Russian Civil War, was a prisoner of war twice, and competed in the 1924 Paris Olympics. Later in life he gained further fame as a television presenter and as Black Rod in the House of Lords.
    In 1940 Horrocks commanded a battalion during the Battle of France and it was then that he first served under Bernard Montgomery, the most prominent British general of the war. [...]
    • I always prefer to see Featured Articles sans red links. The only one in there is Sir William Horrocks. If he really deserves an article perhaps a stub would suffice for now, otherwise I think we could just lose the link.
    • The article should have a WP:Persondata template at the end.
    • There are one or two cosmetic tweaks I would like to make that will take less time to execute than to discuss.
    • In any case, looks very good - well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On Horrock's father he had a 30 year military career of his own and was appointed CB and KCMG [55], so he's just about notable in my book. Something very stubby could be put together iwth gazette refs if nothing else, but they don't really give much context to his service. David Underdown (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the barest details of William Horrocks' life from the autobiography and biography of Brian, no dates of birth or death etc. I didn't really like to start something that bare and wasn't able to pick anything else up in my search. Harlsbottom had expressed some interest in starting an article on William Horrocks a couple of months ago, he may have some sources. Leithp 16:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Harlsbottom has done a superb job in creating a well referenced article on William Horrocks. I think that addresses all the points listed above. Leithp 20:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, talk about 'ask and ye shall receive' - request a stub and get a new article that's pretty well B-class straight off. Great (and fast) work, guys! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved Giants2008 (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - A military general who was also an Olympian? My interest was heightened when I saw that! It looks like a strong, well-written article. Still a handful of issues, though.

    • "This wound caused him continuing health problems and lead to his early retirement after the war." Typo lead→led.
    • Inter-war period, Russia: We don't need battalion linked here; it's already linked in the previous section. Same with platoon.
    • "The journey took over a month to complete" Reviewers here don't like over. They would generally prefer more than.
    • I'm noticing inconsistent date usage. Pick one format and stick with it.
    • Back home: This is the major unanswered question for me. How did he do in the Olympics?
    • World War II: First off, shouldn't this section be titled Second World War? This matches the format used in the rest of the article.
    • "After commanding the battalion for only seventeen days" this sentence goes on and on. Try to break it up.
    • Division linked in two straight paragraphs.

    I'll look at more later. Giants2008 (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    George Patton and Philip Neame (who won a gold) were also Olympians and I'm sure there must be other examples. I think that the military fascination with sports meant this would have been fairly common back when the Olmpics were truly amateur. None of the books I have used as references cover his placement in the Olympics beyond saying that he wasn't among the front-runners. I have found a website that says he finished 20th of 38 (linked on the talk page), but I don't know whether it is reliable. I think that I have now addressed your other points above. Leithp 12:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The web site doesn't look reliable at a glance. Here's a second (and final) look.
    • North Africa: The first paragraph has two references (currently 50 and 51) not following punctuation. This sentence could be broken up anyway.
    • Another ref not following punctuation in paragraph three (current ref 5).
    • Europe: Hyphen for three quarters?
    • What is "D-Day plus 2". Wouldn't it be better to say, "two days after D-Day"?
    • Comma in 1050, and after other weapons later in the sentence.
    • Current ref 85 later in paragraph should be after period.
    • "exposing the Sandbostel concentration camp, Stalag X-B and had reached Cuxhaven by the time hostilities ceased." Something looks wrong with this. Is part of this missing, or am I just reading it wrong?
    • Butting in, at minimum needs a comma after "Stalag X-B". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another ref (8) not after punctuation. Is this a decision on your part?
    • Move current ref 86 back so a space doesn't exist after punctuation.
    • Post-war career: Ref 2 not after punctuation.
    • Refs 89 and 90 need to be moved after periods.
    • "where he explained great battles in history by using map boards and sand tables." Just a minor suggestion.
    • Ref 92 is not after punctuation.
    • I would change "He died" to "Horrocks died". The last text is a quote from the actor who played him in a movie, and it may be better to clarify that Horrocks passed away.
    • Are we allowed to start sentences with whole numbers, like "30 regiments"?
    That's about it from me. These are mostly nit-picks, but featured articles should be as perfect as possible, so I await your response. The article looks ready for FA otherwise, at least from my vantage point. Giants2008 (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The website does give a fairly comprehensive list of sources. If you think it's unreliable I can just remove it, though. I think I've addressed your other points, apart from the "by using map tables" one, which I'm not sure about. Leithp 09:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose—Support. 1a. Took a sample way down that showed a high degree of gobbledygook civil-service-ese.

      • "Upon arriving, Horrocks was ..."—arriving where? You can't rely on the section title for that information.
      • "implementing the defence of"—can you think of one word to replace these four?
      • "Montgomery, mindful of the need to prevent casualties prior to the planned Second Battle of El Alamein, instructed Horrocks that he repel Rommel ...". I mean, why not: "to prevent casualties prior to the planned Second Battle of El Alamein, Montgomery instructed Horrocks to repel Rommel ..."? Straighter line, five words removed.
      • "came to attack"—why not just "attacked"?
    Most sentences present easy ways to implement Plain English. Please fine someone else to strip it back to plain, elegant English. The whole article. (The lead suffers less from this disease, though.) TONY (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have addressed your specific points. I'm at a loss about what to do about your more general criticism, though. Leithp 13:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made a number of changes to the article. I don't know if it now meets your standards but I'd appreciate any further comments. Leithp 08:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spot-check on one small part-paragraph. My oppose remains, I'm afraid.
      • "substantive lieutenant-colonel"—not actionable, but for my benefit, what does "substantive" mean? As opposed to what?
      • Caption: "Major-General Horrocks, then GOC of 9th Armoured Division, in his Covenanter command tank during an exercise, 18 July 1942." No period, since it's just a nominal group, not a full sentence. See MOS.
      • "After assisting in organising the new short course for officers,..."—Do we know already about this course? Why "the"? And surely "new" is an epithet (normal adjective), but "short" is a classifier (can't be a very short course, since short-course is a genre of course; thus, a hyphen is required to make it clear).
      • Not good:

    "British doctrine of the time did not have heavy machine guns as an organic part of lower formations and instead kept them under the direct command of the corps or, in this case, division."

    Maybe "at the time"? And is "doctrine" the right word?

    "British policy was not to use heavy machine guns as an organic part of lower formations, but to keep them under the direct command of the corps or, in this case, the division."

      • May I suggest that you go through and add commas after most of the sentence-inital adverbial and prepositional phrases? This optional comma is more likely in longer sentences and more formal prose. For example: "After commanding the battalion for only seventeen days, he had impressed his superiors sufficiently for him to be given the temporary rank of brigadier and the command of 11th Brigade." More redundancy; why "11th" but "seventeenth"? Check whether "the" belongs before the title of the brigade. TONY (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Doctrine" is, I believe, the term used in the military for that kind of operational guidelines. 11th is because it is the form the British Army used to refer to its brigades. It would only use the form "Eleventh" for an Army. I have no idea why. Substantive is a form of temporary rank, I believe. I'll try and clarify that. I don't believe that "the" is appropriate in front of brigade numbers. It doesn't seem to be used in my sources, anyway. I'll try to address your other comments. Thanks for the feedback. Leithp 06:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got it the wrong way round. "Substantive" is the officer's permanent rank, i.e. when the war ends and the Army is de-mobilised, the officer would return to that rank. "Acting" or "Brevet" are temporary appointments due to local circumstances or a shortage of officers of the required rank. It was not uncommon to hear of officers being reduced from acting lieutenant-colonel or brigadier to captain at the end of the First World War, for example. Leithp 06:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We do have an article on military doctrine, would it help to link that? On rank, British Army use has distinguished at different times (in order of "permanence") between "local", "acting", "temporary", "war substantive" "brevet" (though this seems to have fallen into disuse), and "substantive" (at some periods this might be referred to as regimental rank). I have been thinking that we could do with an article on this topic, but I don't really have the sources or knowledge to do it justice. David Underdown (talk) 08:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    An article sounds useful. I'm damned if I can work out what all those terms mean. Leithp 14:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have asked an outside editor to copyedit. Hopefully it now meets your standards, Tony. Thanks. Leithp 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I returned wanting to be generous, but found too many deficiencies in my spot-check, too easily. Like ...
    • "one hundred and sixty-seven successful applicants for cadetships, even including 200 bonus points"—figures or spelt out: which? I suggest figures.
    • "which rather embarrassed Horrocks"—"Rather" is normally avoided in this register (it's what we call "interpersonal", grammatically).
    • "He was also interviewed extensively for"—Have you told us already about interviews? No. "Also" is redundant.
    • Caption fluff: "Horrocks carried the map board with him when visiting troops in order to provide front-line soldiers with an overview of the situation." Remove the hated "in order" (makes me do a Hitler salute). "Horrocks carried the map board with him when visiting front-line soldiers to provide them with an overview of the situation." Better?
    • "and was knighted with his appointment as a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire"—can it avoid the repeated word?
    Not happy. It really needs a good hour or more by a a thorough copy-editor. TONY (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've addressed your specific points and will try and find a fresh copyeditor. Leithp 17:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: His platoon command guarding the ammo going to Omsk. A platoon with 14 officers is incredibly high. Is this 14 soldiers? Or were there additional attached officers because of the special nature of the task? If that is the case, it might be good to explain that, otherwise it looks quite odd. Buckshot06(prof) 21:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have changed the sentence to simply give the size of the party. Leithp 21:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose I'm having to read too many sentences twice before I understand them. Here is but one example of many:

    By mid-September, XXX Corps had been diverted to the east, while the First Canadian Army would be tasked with clearing the strengthened German defensive line stretching from Antwerp down both banks of the Scheldt River to the North Sea in the month-long, costly Battle of the Scheldt.

    There are others like this where too many thoughts are being squashed into one sentence. It's hard work rather than a pleasure to read. GrahamColmTalk 14:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. -The article is much improved since my first reading. GrahamColmTalk 06:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments DONE Lead should be reworded to include his books and jounalism, and to remove the implausible claim that he gained "further fame" or whatever as Black Rod - who can ever name the current Black Rod, unless they are already famous, as Horrocks was? If anything he made the job more famous. The lead should also mention his two periods as a POW. The military terminology does get a bit congested at times for a general reader like myself, but I see others are addressing this. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have made a slight change to the opening paragraph, to address the point you made about his writing and Black Rod. The lead does say "was a prisoner of war twice" and I feel it might overwhelm the lead if I expand on that. Do you agree? Leithp 19:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I have marked my specific comments done, and expect to support when some (not all) of the phrasing points of others are addressed - I seem to feel about 50% should be adjusted, others are not needed. Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Per above. Prose seems sufficiently improved to me, although others may continue to winkle out points. Military history always means rather chewy prose in my experience. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Since I have a military history article also winding through FAC, I'm not unbiased enough to support this. However, I want to say that you do an excellent job here with the material that you are given. Military biographies are tough! A few suggestions:

    • Can you expand on his time as the Black Rod any? That seems notable, but it is given only the most passing of glances. If it's just ceremonial, that makes sense, but were there any particularly notable ceremonies that he was involved in that could be mentioned? Certainly not as important as a war record, but something interesting must have happened in 14 years?
    • Should you add a "Works" section for the book(s) that he's written and the other things that he participated in? I don't know if this is in the MOS anymore, but it may be a good idea.
    • You tend to end sections with one or two-sentence paragraphs. Can these be merged into the above paragraphs?
    • Your abbreviations in references are distracting, especially when you take it to the extreme with #37.
    • You cite what his nickname means, but no citations to support your interpretation or that show that was his nickname.
    • Take another look at the lead. The third paragraph reads funnily in context and there are other elements of his life that may deserve mention. POW, for example?

    All in all, an enjoyable history. JRP (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Taking your comments in order:
    • I have added a couple of anecdotes from his time as Black Rod, to expand on that a little. Let me know what you think.
    • He authored two books, both listed in the "references" section, and edited a number of regimental histories. I'm not convinced that there is a benefit in listing the regimental histories, as he only wrote forewords for them.
    • I have expanded one of the short paragraphs and will likely look at doing that to the others, rather than combine them with preceding paragraphs. Although I agree that all are a bit too brief, they all mark a change in subject to the preceding content.
    • I have changed ref #37, as suggested. As regards the other abbreviations, I had thought that it was clear which book was referred to and that further expansion was unnecessary. This is particularly the case with clumsy titles such as the Neillands and Warner books.
    • I have added a ref for the nickname. I must have missed that.
    • I was rather fond of that third paragraph! Do you think I should combine it with the second? I'm not certain that his sojourns as a POW are important enough to be expanded on in the lead, compared to his Second World War actions.
    Thanks for your kind words regarding the article and best of luck with your own FAC. I agree with you about military biographies, the terminology is a killer and it's hard to get beyond the "date-action, promotion, date-action, promotion" format. Horrocks' autobiography (a good read, by the way) manages this by using anecdotes extensively, something I was trying not to do too much. Leithp 20:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Generally looks good to me. Gary King (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Image concerns resolved, Kelly hi! 04:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kelly hi! 15:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have updated the links (to a general IWM search page, as the picture links expire), added some details of the Siberian photo and added the Commonscat template. Thanks. Leithp 19:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support, greatly improved and I think it's ready. --Laser brain (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Oppose, the prose is not very compelling, but my main issue was just getting stuck in the unclear narrative with too many questions whose answers do not lie in the text. Examples:[reply]

      • "Horrocks attributed this rapport to the "respect for each other" of front-line troops." Grammar.
      • "Despite his capture, he was promoted to lieutenant on December 18, 1914." Double meaning, can't determine which it is.
      • "While imprisoned, he tried to escape, and he once came within 500 yards (460 m) of the Dutch border before capture." I thought he lost the use of his legs?
      • "To prevent further escape attempts, his captors placed him in a compound for Russian officers." I don't understand how this prevented escape attempts. Were the Russian officers prisoners? Why was their compound more secure?
      • "Horrocks used the time to learn their language." Why pipe this link and make the reader click it to discover what their language was?
      • "Horrocks had trouble adapting to peace-time on his return and spent four years of back-pay in six weeks, indulging in pleasure trips to London." Sounds like what every sailor I've ever known does every time we had shore leave. How is this having trouble adapting to peace-time?
    These are all just from one section. A lot of fit and finish needed, plus work on the narrative. --Laser brain (talk) 05:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Laser's last point is another example of the throwing into a single sentence of ideas with dubious logical connection, joined by "and". TONY (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Minor question, could you clarify this statement: "The battle ended with the Germans in control of Himeihat hill, at a high cost, and the Allied forces unwilling to try to re-take it after a failed attack by the 2nd New Zealand Division on the withdrawing Germans" The end of this statement implies the Germans abandoned the hill, but the start of the statement says they were left in control of it. Can you clarify this? Maury (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I took out "on the withdrawing Germans". If I remember right, and I don't have the source in front of me, the counter-attack came as the Germans withdrew back to the hill. The sentence was unclear, as you say. Leithp 06:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Just a quick comment for now - please make sure that all the image captions make it obvious why the image is relevant to this article. This is most egregous with the Russian civil war image. Try reading through the article by reading only the image captions (maybe the first two lines of the intro as well) and see if it at least makes basic sense to people. Savidan 13:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've changed that caption and made a slight alteration to another two. Hopefully that helps the situation. Leithp 08:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Note that this has been copyedited over the last few days by User:Finetooth, User:EyeSerene, and myself. Maralia (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Good stuff. The copy issues (which I first grumbled about at this article's A-Class review) have been addressed. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Closing note; this FAC has been up for a month, with quite a few editors pitching in to bring it over the hump. I hope the early Supporters have taken note, and future noms will be copyedited before coming to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:03, 16 June 2008 [56].

    Indigenous people of the Everglades region[edit]

    This is the first of five articles regarding the Everglades I hope to bring to FA. It has had an extensive peer review and has passed GA. I created this and three other articles to complement the main Everglades article, which will be the last to come here. This is the shortest, and actually....feels rather nekkid, compared to my other tomes. I hope you may find that a relief. I'll do what needs to be done to get it featured. Thank you for reading it. Article creator. Moni3 (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Gary King (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Approximately, 5,000 years ago" → "Approximately 5,000 years ago"
    • "1743 [7]" → "1743[7]"
    • I suggest linking "game" in the first sentence to Game (food) because it isn't used in the sense of Game, which is what it usually means far more often.

    Gary King (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok I fixed the first two probs. For the third...I mean...really? People need a link to game? I just spent a couple minutes laughing out loud. Are they visualizing these Paleo-Indians stalking prehistoric versions of...Monopoly? Stratego? Did the giant Risk throw those little plastic pieces at them in defense while the Indians threw spears at the board? Did they follow Connect Four over the ice bridge from Russia to Alaska? Screw Gary Larson. I'm drawing that one for myself... --Moni3 (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think linking Game is a valid point and would be worthwhile, the lead isn't remotely overlinked and the definition is relevant. It's not necessarily just because of the potential for confusion (which exists, even if it is slight) - climate, casino and drought are all (quite properly) linked in the article, for example. Adacore (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Climate and casino can't be confused for different terms. "Game" is understood in the context. And I am afraid of Tony1. Don't tell him. --Moni3 (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you are too familiar with the article, then; otherwise, maybe common words like "casino" should be unlinked (there are more examples in the body). I know what game is, but don't think I have ever used it in a day-to-day conversation or even read it anywhere – a simple link would allow me to click on it to learn more. Isn't that the whole point of linking words – to let the reader click on them to learn more about topics that are important to the article they are currently reading? Gary King (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to cap this because I would rather not receive any more sarcasm thrown my way. Gary King (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gary King (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: A nice article on an interesting topic. First off, I confess that it left me wishing for more information on the Calusa and the Tequesta. I understand that this is just an introductory article, but still.. a little bit more information on their way of life and culture wouldn't hurt. The way things are now - I'm sorry if I'm being harsh here - the Calusa and the Tequesta lived in Florida, were skilled travelers in canoes, and hunted small game; the only difference between them was that the Calusa had human sacrifices. Anyway, maybe other reviewers will feel differently about the content. Style-wise, I'm no expert, but I believe it needs at least some copy-editing - there are instances of words and names repeated a bit too many times, some redundancy-related issues, and sometimes the text doesn't really flow. A few examples:

    • Section "Calusa", second paragraph: "In 1545 a 13-year-old boy was the only survivor of a shipwreck off the coast of Florida." - there's no mention of this boy in the next sentence, so its a little bit difficult to understand that Fontaneda was that boy (was he? I'm still not sure!); maybe some context wouldn't hurt (i.e. along the lines of "Much of the information on Calusa was provided by Hernando de Escalante Fontaneda, who [...]"
    • "Smaller tribes of Ais and Jaega, lived to the east of Lake Okeechobee, and they paid regular tributes to Carlos." - "they" is not required here.
    • "The main village of the Calusa, and home of Carlos" - sorry, you lost me here. Throughout the section, you use two words for the chief - "Carlos" and "cacique", and to confuse matters further, Carlos is actually another name for the Calusa. And then there's "the leadership of cacique Carlos" in the last paragraph. Ouch!
    • "Building shell mounds.." - you were talking about human sacrifices, and then suddenly switch to this; maybe it'd flow slightly better if you added something basic like "Another important tradition was.." to the beginning of the sentence.

    etc.; more experienced editors will no doubt provide more examples.

    I also have a small issue with the sentence "Each year a Christian was required to be sacrificed to appease a Calusa idol." - I feel this needs some clarifiation. Clearly the custom couldn't have existed before the Europeans came to the Americas, was there a reason for the Calusa to start doing this? Who did they sacrifice before the Europeans came? Etc. Of course, this is of minor importance, I just thought it was weird, especially stated flat-out like that.

    Finally, perhaps wikifying some of the geographical places wouldn't hurt - I realize you're going for one link per article thing, but I feel the reader might need a link to Lake Okeechobee while reading about the Calusa, etc. --Jashiin (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You're not being harsh, however I have to point out that there is not a lot of material that exists about these people. I would like to know more about their ways of life as well. I'll do my best to hunt down more information if you could be more specific about what it is you would like to see: more about religion? food? society? I can't promise anything, but I will search.
    Basically, I thought some of the information from the articles Calusa and Tequesta could be incorporated (these articles don't have too many inline citations, but some references are provided - possibly helpful?); the stratified society of the Calusa (and there you have a mention of multiple chiefs, which would help to partly eliminate the confusion we discussed) and their belief in reincarnation, the complete lack of agriculture in Tequesta life, the mention of Miami Circle, possible human sacrifices in Tequesta culture, etc. --Jashiin (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed most of the issues you mentioned. As for the last about the Christian sacrifice, the sentence preceding that one says that Fontaneda is describing the sacrifice of Christians. I can't really state what Fontaneda did not, and since he wasn't present before Europeans were there, he didn't state that that practice was a new one.
    I see, thanks for clearing this up. --Jashiin (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit that the Spanish references to the tribe as Carlos and then naming their chief Carlos is confusing, but it is anthropologically accurate.
    But don't you think some clarification is needed? For instance, exactly who is a "cacique Carlos" - one of the chiefs or a particularly important chief? The Ais and the Jaega paid regular tributes to a/the chief, or to the Calusa? Or "home of Carlos" - this probably refers to _the_ main chief, but the reader has to guess. Perhaps after you explain the term "cacique" in the second paragraph, you could make a notice for the reader that, to avoid confusion, "Carlos" will only refer to a chief in this particular article. And edit the article accordingly, where needed. Hmm? --Jashiin (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the time you took to put into the review. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. --Moni3 (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    On inclusion of information on the Miami Circle: I'm more than a little bit embarrassed here. I don't live in South Florida, but this, among a few other reasons, may persuade me to subscribe to the Miami Herald. I didn't know about the Miami Circle until yesterday. All my sources refer to information prior to 1998, of course. However, I did some searching and reading. I can include the following information, but I am concerned that it may have WP:UNDUE weight due to recent discoveries. I am also concerned because the site is still not fully understood:

    Because little was recorded about the Tequesta in Spanish histories, much of the details about their lives is unknown. However, more evidence of their society became uncovered when in 1998, a high-rise apartment complex in Miami was torn down. During the excavation, a formation was discovered that indicated the site to be archeologically significanct: a circle 38 feet (12 m) in diameter composed of 24 shallow basins surrounded by more than 600 postholes.[5] It became known as the Miami Circle, and initial analysis was controversial as ownership of the 2.2 acres (0.0089 km2) parcel was contested. The Miami Circle is located at the mouth of the Miami River near Biscayne Bay in prime real estate territory. Initial reports disagreed as to whether it represented an ancient site, or a modern byproduct of the nearby apartment complexes' septic tank drainage. However, a report completed by the National Park Service concluded the site was more than 2,000 years old and suggested "(t)he site may have been used for ceremonial purposes, and this use may have spanned the period from when the Miami Circle was built to a later period of habitation".[6]

    --Moni3 (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Since it does seem to be an important site, I suggest simply adding a notice about it - i.e. something along the lines of "The recently discovered Miami Circle, a large man-made structure located at the mouth of the Miami River, may have been built by the Tequesta, although the issue remains controversial as of 2008." --Jashiin (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. All the issues I had raised above have been resolved. This is a very nicely written, tight and compact article about an important part of the history of indigenous people of North America. The difficult task of writing an introductory, summary-style article (without going overboard with the content) has been handled well here by Moni3. --Jashiin (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Adacore (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Generally this seems a well written, informative and well researched article. I only have some minor comments:

    • In the lead, "The Calusa were more powerful in number and political structure." - does this mean their internal politics were more developed and powerful, or does it mean they were the politically stronger of the tribes when it came to interactions between them? Could this be clarified?
    • Also lead, "The last mention of the Tequesta was their transport to Havana." - what transport? When? I guess this lack of detail might be intended to draw one into reading the article, but it left me confused.
    • In Prehistoric Peoples, "The large game that were adapted for desert conditions..." - I'd say "adapted to".
    • In Prehistoric Peoples, "They were highly adaptable to shifting climate and..." - perhaps "They were able to adapt to the shifting climate and..." or "They were able to rapidly adapt to shifts in climate and..." (Yes, I know, a split infinitive). Not a big thing, obviously, but the way it's written now just doesn't scan for me. Feel free to implement any of the suggestions or not.
    • Minor quibble, but the "Cultural Periods in Prehistoric South Florida" includes the Historic period which is, by definition, not Prehistoric. I can't think of any way to improve this though, unless you extend it further up to the present day (with a 'Modern' or 'Recent' period, whatever the correct term would be) then remove "Prehistoric" from the title.
    • The image "Indigenous people of Everglades map" has both Ais and Jaega with the same colour in the key. Is this correct, or is one of them meant to be the brown colour seen around "Charlotte Harbour" to the north of the map? I can't tell for certain from the text.
    • In Tequesta, why say "They were skilled travellers in canoes..." rather than just "They were skilled canoeists..." which seems to be more relevant in context as well?
    • Also in Tequesta, "After Menéndez visited, there are few records of the Tequesta; a reference to them in 1673, and further Spanish contact to convert them." - this seems to be left hanging. Perhaps finish the sentences with "...are the only known reports." Or something similar (if this is true).
    • In Seminole, "...Creeks invaded the Florida peninsula and conquered and assimilated..." I don't like the repeated "and", perhaps change to "invaded the Florida peninsula, conquering and assimilating...".
    • In Seminole, Timucuan should link to Timucua_language, not Timucuan?
    • Does the term "Indian agent" have a specific meaning? It doesn't really seem to fit to me, but I may just not know the terminology.
    • The articles on Arawak and Taino are tribes from a similar region, but as far as I can see didn't have any direct impact on the Everglades indigenous people. Are they relevant enough to be linked in the "see also" section? A quick search on their pages doesn't reveal any mention of Everglades, Seminole, Calusa or Tequesta.
    Capped mostly resolved comments. Adacore (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As Jashiin said, the page could perhaps do with a more thorough copyedit, but I don't think it's got any major problems. A very interesting read, I learnt a lot - nice work! Adacore (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To Jashiin and Adacore: I'll work on more detail without taking too much from the main Calusa and Tequesta articles, focusing on society. Give me a couple days to read up and do that. I'll also try to make it clear that the Spanish not only referred to the tribe as Carlos, but the most powerful cacique as Carlos. Adacore, I made most of the changes you requested. The table with Prehistoric and Historic is verbatim from the source. I'm not going to change it. Thank you both for reading it and for your reviews. I'll leave a note here when I think I've addressed the detail you requested. --Moni3 (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support None of my concerns were showstoppers, and most have been addressed now anyway. All in all a good, well written, well referenced article covering the intended scope. Adacore (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Sources look good. The two whole links checked out fine with the link checker tool. Full disclosure, I passed this article for GA a while ago. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment
    • I suppose the first question is "people" or "peoples"? Not that there's a right or wrong answer, I'm just curious why you picked one over the other.
    Lead
    • Opening sentence - wouldn't "about 15,000 years ago" read better than "approximately 15,000 years ago"?
    • Second sentence: I wouldn't open with "There,"; could use it after "landscape", but I think the sentence would read better without it
    • Third sentence: "Climate changes" or "Climate change"?
    • Same sentence: "and the Paleo-Indians slowly adapted to the new conditions" - is the introduction of the rate of adaptation supported by sources, or is it just based on the assumption that adaptation is slow? In addition, isn't it implicit in the fact that they survived?
    • Fifth sentence: "They were better suited for environmental changes than their ancestors"; this bothers me. Is there evidence that supports this assertion? The prehistoric peoples section suggests otherwise ("the population decreased overall on the peninsula").
    • Sixth sentence: "Approximately 5,000 years ago, the climate shifted again to cause the regular flooding from Lake Okeechobee that became the Everglades ecosystems"; apart from my dislike for "approximately" when "about" would work, was the climate change abrupt? This seems to imply that it was?
    • Second para, second sentence: "Descriptions of these peoples were given by the first Spanish explorers" - something more along the lines of "The earliest written descriptions...come from Spanish explorers who sought to..." would read better.
    • Fourth sentence: "The Calusa were more powerful in number and political structure" - I don't think that "powerful" is really the best adjective to describe either "number" or "political structre". Maybe "The Calusa were more numerous and had a more sophisticated political structure"?
    • Fifth sentence: "but extended" or "and extended"? I.e., do you intend to contrast the extent of their territory with their power base at Ft. Myers?
    • Seventh sentence: "Both societies were well adapted to live in the various ecosystems of the Everglades regions, and often traveled through the heart of the Everglades, though they rarely lived within it"; again, I am not so sure if "adapted" is the best term, but more importantly this sentence has too many distinct ideas. (I would split it at the "and").
    • Eighth sentence: "After more than 200 years of relations with the Spanish, both societies lost cohesiveness"; is this something that happened after 200 years, or over the course of 200 years?
    Calusa
    • First sentence: "What is known of the inhabitants of Florida after 1566 was recorded by European explorers and settlers"; I think this is a little out of place here. It isn't the best opening sentence, and it's out of sequence.
    • Third sentence is too long and the final thought (where he found at least one of them fluent in Spanish) is a little awkward tacked onto the end.
    • Fifth sentence: "and the tribe gained a reputation for violence enough to cause future explorers to avoid them" - "enough" feels wrong. Maybe "that caused"?
    • Sixth sentence: "they were successfully able" - either "successful" or (better, IMO) "able" is sufficient.
    • Second para, first sentence: "The Calusa were referred to as Carlos by the Spanish, which may have sounded like Calos, a variation of the Muskogean word kalo meaning "black" or "powerful"" - I don't follow this sentence. Carlos may have sounded like Calos, or Calos may have sounded like Carlos?
    • Fourth sentence: "For seventeen years he lived with the Calusa"; better "He lived among the Calusa for 17 years".
    • Fifth sentence: "Menéndez took Fontaneda to Spain where he wrote about his observations" - "recorded his observations" or "wrote about his experiences", I think.
    • Seventh sentence: "between the Spanish and the Calusa" - isn't this implied in the previous sentence?
    • Third para, first sentence: "Fontaneda explained" or "recounted"?
    • Fourth sentence: "Fontaneda described that human sacrifice" - no, not "described that"
    • Sixth sentence: "Also of spiritual significance to the Calusa was the building shell mounds of varying sizes and shapes" - "the construction of shell mounds"? (I would move "also of spiritual significance" to the end of the sentence).
    • Fourth para: the first sentence doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the para - it might be better off moved to the prev. para.
    • Fifth para, first sentence: "Calusa villages were sometimes populated by more than 200 inhabitants" - "sometimes had more than"
    • Sixth para: "The Spanish found Carlos uncontrollable, as priests and Calusa fought almost constantly. Carlos was killed when a Spanish soldier shot him with a crossbow." Did the Calusa fight with the priests, or with the Spanish?
    • Third sentence: "Following the leadership of cacique Carlos, leadership of the society passed to two caciques" - "After the death of..."?
    Tequesta
    • First para, fourth sentence: "They, too, rarely lived within the Everglades" - I think we've gotten too far from the statement about the Calusa not living in the Everglades to say "they, too". Maybe "like the Calusa"?
    • Same sentence: "but found the coastal prairies and pine rocklands to the east...habitable"; having said earlier that these people were "adapted" to the Everglades, I think "found...habitable" is problematic language, since it implies that they found other areas (the Everglades) uninhabitable.
    • Seventh sentence: "marks where a village once stood" or "marks a village site"?
    • Second para, first sentence: depictions or descriptions? (Depiction tends to be used more for illustrations).
    • Fourth sentence: changing ", but were probably manatees," to "(probably manatees)" would improve readability. Also I think it would be pretty safe to link to West Indian manatee rather than just manatee.
    • Third para, second sentence: "he left them to make contact with the Calusa" implies that the Tequesta were "left to make" contact with the Calusa.
    • Fifth sentence: I think you should use a colon instead of a semi-colon there.
    • Sixth sentence: "The last reference to the Tequesta during their existence"; "last contemporary reference"?
    • seventh sentence: "use only" or "only use"?
    Seminole
    • First para, fifth sentence: Muskogean and Creek? Isn't the Creek lang (Muscogee) a Muskogean language?
    • Second para, sixth sentence: "They hunted for what they ate" - doesn't this contradict the prev. sentence, which says that they farmed and raised domestic animals?
    • Second para - overall this seems a little disorganised.
    • Third para, second sentence - this should be broken into 2 sentences
    • Fourth sentence: "Those who did not flee into the Everglades were relocated to Oklahoma Indian territory" - calling Indian Territory Oklahoma at this period in time is a bit of an anachronism.
    • Sixth sentence: "At the end of the third conflict, 20 Seminoles were killed..." - at the end, or over the course? (ie, is this distinct from casualties during the war?)
    • Fourth para, fourth sentence: "a road that spans from Tampa to Miami"? Runs from? Connects?
    • Fifth sentence: "hunters who plundered wildlife" - "plundered" is probably not encyclopaedic language.
    • Same sentence: "impacting" or "which impacted" (or "which made it difficult to sustain themselves through subsistence hunting")
    • Sixth sentence: "They instead began to work in local farms, ranches, and souvenir stands" I don't like "they instead", especially at the start of the sentence, but I think this might be better combined with the idea that subsistence hunting was not longer able to sustain their livelihoods.
    Black seminoles

    Guettarda (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, that is what I get for writing a short article. I made the changes that I agreed would improve the aritcle. There are some requests that would change accuracy, and some that compromise requests from other editors. There are a few issues I clarified, some I deleted, and some I have to work on when I get my sources. Black Seminoles, I understand, were a subculture within the Seminoles. They did not live in the Everlgades - more in central and north Florida. Thank you for reading the article and for the thorough review. --Moni3 (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think that Indian Territory would be a better link than Oklahoma and "spans from" hurts the part of my brain that hears when I read things (or at least when I read in a careful, nitpicky manner) :) But, I'd say you have an FA. Guettarda (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Image concerns resolved, Kelly hi! 15:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments on images by Kelly hi! 13:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Pedro Menendez image information has been updated. The Charley Cypress image source is the main page for the Florida Memory Collection. You'll have to search for Charley Cypress to find the image, I'm afraid. I would like to change the map to an SVG, but I don't know how. The source information in the map file has been updated. --Moni3 (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've tagged the map image for conversion, but that category seems badly backlogged. (I don't believe that, in itself, should affect FA promotion.) On the Charley Cypress photo, it is not coming up for me when I search from the linked search page. Can you update the description to provide some brief instructions on exactly how to reach the source for the image? Kelly hi! 14:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okeydoke. A little red-faced again here since I spelled Charlie's name incorrectly. However, I amended the Source info to include the title and call number of the photo. You should be able to find it much faster with the call number. I tested the Florida Memory site to check. --Moni3 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. I formatted the description into the {{Information}} template. Kelly hi! 15:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I had a couple of issues with regard to clarity which have been resolved on the article's talk page. This is a beautifully written , interesting and well researched article. GrahamColmTalk 14:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. but the two images on the Seminole family and Charlie Cypress should be moved to commons. If you want me to do that for you, hit my talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved those two images and the map to Commons, all have the same name. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't be expected to remember the proper names for headings. Sheesh. And fixed the rest of the blah blah. --Moni3 (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope I earned my salary for the day :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:03, 16 June 2008 [57].

    American Airlines Flight 11[edit]

    Self-nominator: This article has been significantly improved in the last few days, doubling the amount of verifiable sources and increasing the reader's knowledge of the subject. Now, the article flows well and is ready for review. -- VegitaU (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - You may have to change the CNN photo to the image with the description page, because currently a fair use rationale/copyright isn't shown to the viewer, making it clear it isn't free use. Hello32020 (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response: I have taken care of it. It now links to the image page itself. -- VegitaU (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have requested help with copyediting from User:PTR. He has helped me with previous featured articles. --Aude (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have fixed the obvious problems listed. -- VegitaU (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, two users have come and copyedited the article. -- VegitaU (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Looks good so far, but there are issues with the prose throughout:
      • "Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz al-Omari arrived at Portland International Jetport at 05:40 in the morning on September 11, 2001." - Firstly, who are the two people? Might add a minor bit of explanation before it. Secondly, I would suggest adding a time zone abbreviation in brackets after 05:40.
      • The first link of Portland, Maine under "Flight" section needs disambiguation, and the second part linking to Maine instead of just one link to Portland, Maine.
      • Same goes for the Los Angeles, California link in "Flight" section.
      • "The pair had first class tickets"...The pair of what? Try instead: "Both passengers had first class tickets" for example.
      • "As they checked in, CAPPS selected Atta for extra luggage scrutiny, but he boarded without incident." - CAPPS? What is CAPPS? I had to click onto it to find out. Please use full names instead of abbreviations on the first occurrence, with the abbreviation in brackets.
      • "on-time" - Why is a hyphen being used here?
      • These are just a few examples, there are problems throughout the article. Please get an editor new to the text to fully copyedit it.
      • See Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/Members and Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#General_copyediting for lists of copyeditors who can help.

    — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Looks much better now that it has been copyedited. However, the lead needs expanding to fully summarize the article per WP:LEAD before I can support. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We expanded the lead, summarizing and covering more of the important details about the flight. Please let us know what else we can do. --Aude (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Looks better now that it has been copyedited and the lead has been expanded. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Current ref 33 "Inside 9/11" is there a date of publication etc that can be added to the bibliographic information?
    Sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response: Alrighty, I've changed ref 33 to reflect the original U.S. airdate per IMDB. -- VegitaU (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thanks! I know it was picky, but... anyway, all done! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments, am leaning toward support

    • Is this a edit blip? On board, two flight attendants board contacted American Airlines,
    • The Hijacking section, with an image, quote box, and 2 media files looks crowded.
    • Is this a verbatim quote? All of a sudden, boom he disappear into the Trade Center. I'm pretty strict with using original punctuation and grammar in the quotes I use, but I just wanted to make sure that's accurate.
    • Who suggested this? It is possible that al-Suqami killed Lewin after he attempted to stop the hijacking
    • This sentence: The nine minutes of advanced notification about the hijacking of Flight 11 was the most that NORAD received out of the four hijacked aircraft on 9/11. does it mean the time between notifying the military and impact was the longest of all 4 hijacked flights? I don't quite understand this.
    • It appears that you have researched the article well. I think it is well-written, but perhaps as a testimony to its writing - I can't read it without being upset. I would like to read it several more times to make a better decision. --Moni3 (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We have tried addressing each point. The first point was indeed a typo - my fault. Regarding the quote, it is verbatim. --Aude (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a better source for the quote. For some reason, the one cited wasn't coming up on my computer. -- VegitaU (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. I've read the article about five times now. It doesn't get any easier, but I was concerned that there were content areas not covered, but I can't think of anything else that deals with this flight only. I still don't quite get that sentence about NORAD's advanced notification, but the rest of the article is well-written and apparently well-researched. Well done. --Moni3 (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how to word it clearer, but NEADS/NORAD (the military) was notified about Flight 11 at 8:37 a.m. (nine minutes before the crash), which is the amount of time available to them to respond to the situation. They were notified about United Airlines Flight 175 at 9:03 a.m. (same time it crashed into the South Tower). They were notified about American Airlines Flight 77 three minutes before it crashed into the Pentagon. NORAD/the military was notified about United Airlines Flight 93 at 10:07 a.m. (four minutes after it crashed in Pennsylvania). People may wonder why the military wasn't able to respond in time, but in reality, they had little or no advanced notice about the hijackings. The nine minutes (inadequate as it may be) with Flight 11 was the most time they had to do something in response. --Aude (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Generally the article is looking good, although the 24 hour times threw me off a bit because I'm so used to 12 hour clocks. Gary King (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This article should mention that Seth MacFarlane was supposed to be a passenger on the flight, but got to the airport late and missed the flight. Raul654 (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Response: To be honest, that little factoid was on the article, but I removed it during its overhaul as it seemed trivial. And, honestly, in light of the generally serious, factual mood of the article, I'm not really sure where or why I'd put it in. It's already mentioned on his article. The article doesn't include any other famous people affected by the flight. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If there were any other celebs affected by the crash - I don't know of any myself - IMO they should be mentioned too. Other air-crash articles mention famous people killed in them. See /Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007#Flight_and_passenger_information Raul654 (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that Korean Air article goes overboard with trivia. It's fine to mention notable people who were passengers (which I just added), and thus victims on the flight. I think adding people who were "affected" but not on the flight goes a bit too far with trivia. --Aude (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Flight 007 isn't even a good article to reference from. And I love Family Guy as much as anyone, but MacFarlane isn't notable because he almost set foot on the flight, he's notable because of his work in the entertainment industry. -- VegitaU (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Image:Atta in airport.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons. If you want to use it, you will probably have to upload it here at en Wikipedia with a non-free copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
    • Image:Firstplane.jpg needs more specific source and copyright holder information.
    • Recommend a {{Commoncat}} sisterlink to the Commons category associated with this article.

    Kelly hi! 18:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I will address these issues. It may take me a little bit of time. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was able to deal with these. The Mohamed Atta security footage image is now on enwiki, though discussion is ongoing on the Commons deletion request page. --Aude (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    An issue with the Atta security frame - a separate rationale is needed for each usage of the image, and a little better reason is needed than simply "to illustrate Mohamed Atta on 9/11" - in other words, you need to address WP:NFCC#8 in some fashion by providing a reason why the image is significant. Image:Firstplane.jpg looks fine now. Kelly hi! 19:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried updating the rationales to stress the fact that this is a major historical event and major piece of evidence successfully used against Zacarias Moussaoui. It is a visual record that he was there. Coupled with everything else (ticket records, flight personnel testimony, manifests) it proves his presence and action toward the attacks. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rationales look good now, nice work! Kelly hi! 22:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, a good start but work still needed. I caught and fixed numerous errors—why no peer review? At any rate, my opposition is on criterion 1b (comprehensiveness). The narrative leaves several questions unanswered, and there are some other misc prose issues, as follows:
      • "At 06:52, another hijacker made a call from a pay phone in Logan Airport to Atta's cell phone." Why have we been told the hijackers' names up to this point, but not this one?
      • "Satam al-Suqami, Wail al-Shehri, and Waleed al-Shehri also checked in for the flight in Boston." Why is al-Suqami's first name used again after he's already been introduced?
      • "At 08:26, approximately over Voorheesville, New York, the plane made a 100-degree turn to the south toward New York City." I don't understand how this information is known if the plane's transponder was not transmitting and the flight recorder was never found.
      • "NEADS called on two F-15 fighter jets at Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts, to scramble, intending to intercept. Flight 11 made a final turn towards Manhattan at 08:43. The F-15 fighters were scrambled from Otis at 08:46, but did not become airborne until 08:53." First, I'm not certain many readers will know what "scramble" means, considering that in the second sentence you demonstrate that it doesn't actually mean to take off. Second, why "become airborne" and not "take off"? Third, is this all the information that is known? The obvious question is why the planes did not take off and we need to at least indicate that the reason is not known if it's not.
      • "By that time, American Airlines Flight 11 had already crashed into the World Trade Center." You give the detail of which tower in the lead—why not here?
      • It's not necessary to supply the acronym "FDNY" because you don't use it again.
      • "Although the impact itself caused extensive structural damage, the long-lasting fire ignited by jet fuel was blamed for the structural failure of the tower." I think you need to clarify that the official report blames the fire. Are there reliable sources that blame other things?
      • "Rescue workers at Ground Zero ..." How will unfamiliar readers know what "Ground Zero" is? --Laser brain (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response: I've fixed every point except the NEADS passage as I'm still finalizing research on this. Honestly, I haven't had good experiences trying peer reviews, so I decided to opt out of it this time through. If you have trouble understanding something, please tell me what it is; I'll go through and clean it up.
    Anyways, about the collapse, I am absolutely not compromising on this: the fires and lack of fireproofing, coupled with the structural damage, led to the tower's collapse. I want to be as emphatic as I can on this point. There is no reliable evidence linking anything else to this. And writing "the official story..." makes it sound like there could be something else. Like saying "the official story says Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah Building"; "the official story says Pearl Harbor was surprised-attacked by the Japanese"; "the official story says Apollo 11 landed Armstrong on the moon". -- VegitaU (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa there, cowboy. I was just asking. If serious research has been published in reliable sources, you need to talk about it. If not, don't. I can tell you're accustomed to fighting off 9/11 conspiracy theorists, but have a bourbon and chill. --Laser brain (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, that's cool. I wasn't trying to be snotty, but there is nothing beyond CT regarding the collapse. My bad. -- VegitaU (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Okay, I've added some info to the NEADS passage. Officials spent some time trying to get authorization to issue the scramble order. Once it was finally issued, the pilots went out, mounted and started the jets, and took off. The whole process took about 15 minutes. -- VegitaU (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You have a borked citation. --Moni3 (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Fixed. It was a problem I overlooked during my last edits. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nominal support...but can we clarify which one of the police officers is being quoted after the police officers Patrick McNerney and Jose Sanchez looked for signs of distress: comment? The quote says "I" several times but which one of them is making the comment?--MONGO 13:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed that little oddity. It's from a memorandum and it's wording is confusing, but I got the correct name on the quote. -- VegitaU (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I did a few stylistic changes, but not sure it helped. I find the prose a little choppy in places, but not enough to keep this article from being featured. The refs seem to jive withe the appropriate sections so I therefore support.--MONGO 05:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - I've spent an hour or so tinkering with the prose, [58], please check that I haven't introduced any errors. GrahamColmTalk 12:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Notes; I found MoS issues throughout (WP:GTL, WP:PUNC, missing links, missing nbsps, some undefined terms). Please see my edit summaries, and ask User:Epbr123 to do a check if he has time, particularly of logical punctuation per WP:PUNC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:24, 15 June 2008 [59].

    Battle of Verrières Ridge[edit]

    Self-Nomination If you're outside of Canada, you probably have very little recognition of this battle. In fact, many major D-Day Historians (Carlo D'Este, Dan Van-Der-Vat), go into very little detail concerning this conflict. That said, this article has been in the works since April of 2007. It passed its GA in April 2008, underwent a Peer-Review shortly after, passed its A-Class Review on May 24, & has undergone significant copyediting, both for MoS & for Prose. Having spent the last 14 months working on this article, I feel that it is finally sufficient for the title & rating of Featured Article. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Gary King (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • En dash for "[[July 19]], [[1944]] - [[July 25]], [[1944]]" in the infobox
    • "July 25-26, 1944" — en dash
    • "front.[18][3] Although" — refs in ascending order
    • "Historiography and Controversy" → "Historiography and controversy"
    Hope that's sufficient

    Gary King (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • The Canada at War reference is lacking a publisher.
    I'll see if I can find that. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What exactly is "Juno Beach Centre" referencing? Is it the museum? The exhibits? I'm unclear on this.
    The Juno Beach Centre is a Canadian-run museum in Courseulles-sur-Mer (Normandy) along the Normandy beaches. It has extensive exhibits pertaining to both Canada's involvement in the Battle of Normandy, as well as the drives through Belgium & Holland. I took a lot of notes from the exhibits when I was there in July 2007, then used some of that in citing some of the information within the article. Hope that clarifies. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Urf. Generally we want published information that's reasonably easily accessible. This one, I've never run into it, honestly. I'm inclined to think it's probably not a reliable source, as wikipedia defines it. I'm not saying that the museum isn't reliable, it's that we're relying on your notes (which are unpublished) from the site, do you see the difference? I'm willing to let others decide on this one though. Any suggestions? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know for a fact that the Juno Beach Centre has an excellent website with tons of information on all of their exhibits (I've used it for several other articles). If I am able to locate the URL of the site with this specific exhibit on it, would I be able to us that? Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Or.....I can just remove the refs. Both of them were double-cited, I don't see lack of verifiability being a huge issue (considering I've double-cited & triple-cited everything that could be challenged) Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why double and triple citing instead of citing the most authoritative reliable source? Why not leave off the non-reliable sources, and source only the best sources? Double and triple citing to cover non-reliable sources isn't good sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The way I read this, he's going to remove the questionable site because it was double-cited. Thus doing what you're suggesting Sandy. That was my take on it. And speaking of, has that been done? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. It's been done. Cam (Chat) 17:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Similarly to the MLU refs (as mentioned below), most of the WWII.ca cites have been double-cited. One of them is cited alongside Pg. 222 of Bercuson. As for the other one, I can easily add in a ref from several of my other sources (I should have known that 109 refs weren't nearly enough). Hope that's sufficient. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Go ahead and double ref. Can't hurt! (Is there an award for the most refs per kb of prose?) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the status on this? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure I removed them, although I'll do one final check-through of the refs to make sure. Cam (Chat) 17:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. Now, that came up in a previous review, when we (we being Eyeserene & I in June 2007) debated the suitability of the MLU source. We both noticed a substantial amount of bias within the page itself. You'll also notice that only casualty statistics are cited using that source. In addition, all usages of that source have been double or triple-cited with other references (Ref A is double-cited with Terry Copp 1999a, while Ref B is triple-cited with the BBC-site & pg. 223 of Bercuson). If you wish, I can easily remove the MLU cite, as I have already cited both those figures with other sources. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't you remove the two iffy sites, and link them as external links, which gives folks more information, without having to use dodgy refs. Both sites seem to be non-commercial, or at least as non-commercial as museums get. But if others object to that idea... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Otherwise sources look good, links checked out (except for the one above) with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support

    I've just expanded the lead a bit and done various other minor CE tweaks. Good article, describing the little-known battle itself and the ensuing recriminations. (Disclosure: I copy-edited this a couple of weeks back so I'm not entirely neutral.) --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I am Canadian and I do remember this...And so far I've seen nothing out of place yet. I'll post any comments if I find any faults. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Still looks as good as it did when I read it last. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Gives a full account of the battle and the controversy that surrounds it. Sourcing seems good, and it reads well. Disclosure: I've been working on and off with Cam on this article for a while, and I passed its GA review back in April. EyeSerenetalk 18:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments regarding images

    • Image:Verrieres-under-fire.jpg (the lead photo) seems low-quality for the lead photo in a featured article. Is there any possibility it can be replaced, or barring that, cleaned up? This is some distracting discoloration along the right-hand edge and, to a lesser degree, in the upper left corner.
    EyeSerene has dealt with this one. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Geography of Verrieres-1.5.jpg - is this a scan, or was it made by the uploader from scratch? It appears to be a scan, based on the artifacts in the upper left and the fact that it is slightly misaligned. If a scan, the map needs a source and its copyright status specified. That aside, the misalignment needs to be fixed, and the image should be in PNG or SVG format per WP:IUP#Format and WP:PIFU. The white area surrounding the the map, and the caption "South of Caen" should also be cropped out per WP:PIFU#Replace captions in the image with text.
    • Image:Operation Spring.png is a beautiful user-created battle map - I notice EyeSerene is commenting here - would it be possible to have a version of this map without the caption in the upper left per WP:PIFU#Replace captions in the image with text? Not only does this satisfy the image guideline, but it will facilitate use of the map in other languages' Wikipedia articles about this battle.
    I'll contact EyeSerene on this one. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Duly noted. I'll get this fixed asap (ie within the next 12 hours or so; can't do it from work!) EyeSerenetalk 11:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I hope the image issues are sorted. I further cropped the lead photograph to remove the blemishes mentioned, created a new version of the Caen & surroundings map, removed the caption from the Op Spring map, and just for good measure re-upped the last map to reduce file size. EyeSerenetalk 18:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kelly hi! 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Notes: I left some inline queries and edit summaries about cleanup needs. Sample prose reveals repetitive phrasing:
    • The accepted toll for Operation Atlantic is put at 1,349 total casualties.[7] Of these approximately 300 were fatal.[8] However, the number of soldiers wounded and captured was significantly higher.[8] The casualty figures for Operation Spring are also commonly accepted to be within the vicinity of 500 killed and 1000 wounded or captured.[9][10] Of these, some 315 casualties out of 325 soldiers were taken by the Royal Highland Regiment of Canada, the heaviest Canadian casualty rates of the entire Normandy conflict.[11] If the casualty figures for Atlantic and Spring are taken to be correct, the total casualties for Canadian forces amount to approximately 2,800 casualties. Of these, 800 were fatal.[12] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. I'll get to work on that (thanks for pointing it out). I also fixed the image issue in Historiography that you outlined in the edit summary. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That was only a sample; has someone looked at all of the prose? Also, please update the FAC on resolution of the image issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quick Comment I don't like the use of "Over the years" in the third paragraph of the lead. It doesn't sound encyclopedic, and is not precise. KnightLago (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think "More recently" is any better, it has the same problems. Maybe reword the sentence some how? KnightLago (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does "since the end of World War II, the attack has become one of the most contentious & controversial events in Canadian Military History" sound any better? Cheers! Cam (Chat) 02:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a go at pulling this round a bit too. I've made the link between cause (first sentence of third lead par: questionable decisions, high casualty rates) and effect (second sentence of last lead par: debate and controversy) more explicit. This, I think, makes the logical connection between the two sentences stronger and sidesteps the issues raised by "more recently" and "over the years". Does this work for you? --ROGER DAVIES talk 02:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is somewhat better than what was there before. KnightLago (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1a Issues

    Oppose Support KnightLago (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC):[reply]

    • Somewhere in the beginning you need to put France with Caen, not everybody knows where it is.
    You'd think that'd be obvious.....Oh well. Done. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a specific WL reference to France in the opening sentence to locate all the places mentioned.--ROGER DAVIES talk 04:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Royal Highland Regiment (Black Watch) of Canada, is this the actual name of the group? Maybe remove the Black Watch if it is not and just use their name in the lead and then if you want do Royal Highland Regiment (Black Watch) later in the article. After that you could then just refer to Black Watch. notdone KnightLago (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I knew it wasn't done. That's why I didn't add my note saying I'd fixed it below it. Fortunately, I now have (it was only referred to as the RHROC once after the lead, and as the "Black Watch" the rest of the time). Cam (Chat) 21:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I missed your note below. I figured you would reply up here as you did with everything else. KnightLago (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After the D-Day landings, the Allies were stopped short of the city of Caen, a major Operation Overlord objective,[8] and positional warfare ensued until the first week of July." This sentence is kind of labored, maybe reword?
    Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On July 11, I don't think day and month alone should be wiki linked.
    Point of information, days/months should be wikilinked so that they display either as July 4 or 4 July according to user setting in preferences. --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Added the year as well. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a link to the MOS on this? I am just curious for my own reference. KnightLago (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:SYL --ROGER DAVIES talk 03:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Elements of the British Second Army reached the foot of Verrières ridge and secured part of the adjacent Bourguebus ridge but Verrières itself had yet to be taken, and this was assigned to the newly arrived II Canadian Corps.[11]" The "and this..." part needs to be split off or the sentence reworded. It seems to be hanging off the end of the sentence.
    Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 51st (Highland) Division links to a disambiguation page.
    Relinked. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "All of the attacking forces were under the command of Lieutenant-General Guy Simonds, the overall commander of II Canadian Corps and of the offensives aimed at taking Verrières Ridge." Is offensives the best word here, maybe allied forces, or something else.
    Yeah, since that's exactly what they were: Offensives. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and from "the factory" area south of St Martin" What is the factory area?
    Clarified. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I don't think factory area should be in parenthesis. KnightLago (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, did you check the DAB page for St Martin to see if there is an article? If there is not one, we should create one. KnightLago (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "held the ridge with hundreds of guns" How many exactly? This is not very encyclopedic.
    • "270 divisions" in late 1943. Not explained.
    Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You put Point 67 (on the northern edge of the ridge) at the second use of P67, why not the first.
    • "By that point," Which point exactly?
    Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In order to exploit the foothold made on the ridge (both by the Calgary Highlanders and by the British during Operation Goodwood), General Simonds, commander of II Canadian Corps, rapidly prepared an offensive to take the eastern side of the Orne and the main slopes of Verrières Ridge,[6] scheduled to begin on July 20, 1944.[18]" The scheduled part again seems to just have been tacked onto the end of another sentence.
    Fixed (I think). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "accurate German counterattacks" How were they accurate? Was this artillery fire, or an infantry attack?
    Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The South Saskatchewan Regiment itself moved directly up the slopes of Verrières Ridge." Remove itself, then put this into context.
    Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, the attack ran into torrential rain, rendering the air and armoured support useless, and the infantry began to falter in the mud. Only the infantry faltered, or did the armored support falter as well? Armor and mud do not mix.
    Clarified. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who are the South Sasks?
    Oopsies. I have this habit of referring to Canadian Regiments in their short form after their first usage (Royal Canadian Regiment becomes RCR etc.) Clarified. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Simultaneously in the American sector, General Omar Bradley, Commander of the US forces, was planning his own breakout—Operation Cobra.[27] Guy Simonds began planning his offensive, codenamed Operation Spring. Why is there a dash between breakout and Operation?
    Because MoS guidelines suggest doing so. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you give me a link to this as well? Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MOSDASH --ROGER DAVIES talk 03:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Originally, Spring Why is Spring italicized?
    Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original plan called for the attack to take place on July 23, but "inclement weather" postponed the operation for forty eight hours. Why is inclement weather is " "s? This is usually done when words are not being used in their usual sense. I don't see that here.
    Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ultra received reports of this, and sent them to Simonds's HQ. I know what Ultra is, but it needs to be explained when mentioned in the article.
    Done. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • They were to attack at approximately 05:30 from their assembly area at St Martin. Where is St Martin, it needs to be linked is possible.
    Unfortunately, there is no article concerning the St. Martin in Normandy. I've added a "distance from Caen" figure for a bit more specification there. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (in broad daylight, walking in a straight line) needs to be made into a sentence. This is not encyclopedic.
    Done. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "When they moved up the ridge at 09:30 (in broad daylight, walking in a straight line), they were easy targets for well entrenched German defenders, who were equipped with tanks, 88mm anti tank guns, Nebelwerfer rocket artillery, machine gun nests and dozens of mortar pits." Maybe break this into two sentences? There is a lot here.
    • On the reverse slope, they were subject to even heavier bombardment, as they ran into the counterattacking forces of the 272nd Infantry Division, as well as the 9th SS's Battle Group Sterz. I don't think there should be a comma after bombardment nor do I think the Battle group should be italicized.
    Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All senior commanders of the Black Watch were killed, and two entire companies virtually annihilated. Don't you basically say the say the "and two..." part in the previous sentence?
    Oh yeah...thanks for catching that. Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Black Watch had to be reformed after Verrières ridge—the casualty rates they had sustained were the highest in any Canadian infantry battalion for the remainder of the war. What is "ridge—the"?
    MoS. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bretteville should be Bretteville-sur-Laize Canadian War Cemetery in its first use.
    • (Verrières Village) should be worked into the sentence.
    Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "from the ridge in their attempt to keep Bradley's Americans boxed in." Bradley's Americans doesn't sound good. Bradley was an American. Maybe reword.
    Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (each of which were subject to their own varying degrees of investigation and variation) should be worked into a sentence and not used in parenthesis.
    Fixed. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The accepted toll for Operation Atlantic is put at 1,349 total casualties,[6] with approximately 300 fatalities.[13] However, the number of soldiers wounded and captured was significantly higher. This needs to be explained better as these appear to contradict themselves.
    • First use of POW needs to be the fill words and not an abbreviation.
    fixed this too. Cam (Chat) 21:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • German history does not place any particular significance on the battle of Verrières Ridge. Is there a source for this hugely broad statement?
    I was pretty sure that I had that sourced at one point, must have been cut during one of the copyedits. I'll see if I can relocate that. Cam (Chat) 21:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I also think there are flow problems. Some of the wording seems strange to me. It may be English differences, though I tried to take that into account. To remedy this I suggest asking the WP:LoCE to go over the article. They do good work. KnightLago (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had five copyedits done on this thing over the last month & a half (one by Eyeserene, one by JbMurray, one by Blnguyen, two by Roger). I'll get to work on fixing this stuff immediately (You can cross it off as you think I've addressed it). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:FAC instructions, pls don't strike reviewer comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I just realized that. Already fixed my error. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional notes: There are also unspaced emdashes mixed with spaced emdashes (see WP:DASH); it might be wise to ask User:Epbr123 to check the article for other MoS issues. Also, here's another sample of the rough going with the prose:

    If the casualty figures for Atlantic and Spring are taken to be correct, the total casualties for Canadian forces amount to approximately 2,800 casualties, 800 of which were fatalities.
    Just rewritten it for Cam! Skinny87 (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Repetitive: If the casualty ... total casualties ... amount to 2,800 casualties ... lots of redundant wording there to ("amount to", etc.)
    Unclear, sounds ORish, don't know what it means: ... if ... taken to be correct

    That's only a sample: I'm struggling with the prose, and I'm not a prose guru, but I'm often stumbling over sentences. Also, informal prose, is the ampersand intended here: German infantry & armoured counterattacks ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've put in a request with the MilHist Logistics Department copyediting team, since they seem slightly faster at getting back on stuff than the LoCE (I didn't think an article could go through this many copyedits & still have this many issues. I stand corrected). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I've just gien the article a thorough copy-edit, which should clear up some problems, but I do have several comments for Cam.

    • Are brackets allowed in articles? They may be, but to me they break up the prose a bit.
    • 'During the two-day period, I SS Panzer Corps reinforced the ridge with an additional four battalions, 480 tanks, and 500 guns.' - I realize this is from an ULTRA decrypt, but is that number correct? 480 tanks and 500 guns? It seems far too much for a single division, even an SS one. Skinny87 (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind that four divisions (three of them well equipped SS-Panzer Divisions) held the ridge. You are correct that one division can't call in that much firepower, but four elite divisions (12th SS, 1st SS, 9th SS, 272nd Grenadier) can. Cam (Chat) 20:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This needs a citation - 'Although the Essex Scottish Regiment would suffer heavier losses over the course of the entire war, many of these were taken in the Dieppe Raid of 1942, in which Black Watch participation was minimal.' Skinny87 (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are all of the dashes really required - they do break up the prose somewhat. Skinny87 (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't do so nearly as much as a billion & a half commas or a run-on sentence. Cam (Chat) 20:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Still problems with wordiness and repetitive phrasing, example:

    • Casualty figures for Canadian forces in the battle are subject to some scrutiny, given that each operation had differing casualty rates, each of which were subject to their own varying degrees of investigation and variation in turn.

    each ... each ... varying ... variation ... "some" scrutiny? It takes too much effort to get through the wordiness in these phrases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is really the problem I was getting at with the flow comment. The sentence construction is labored and strange in some parts. I haven't looked at the article again since someone said they copy-edited it, but I hope they went through it with an eye on improving sentence structure, wordiness, flow, etc. KnightLago (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'The casualty figures for Canadian forces who participated in the battle are subject to scrutiny, primarily because each operation had differing casualty rates and were both subject to individual internal investigations which varied in intensity.' - How's that sound Sandy? Skinny87 (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hang on, how about this - 'The casualty figures for the Canadian forces who participated in the battle are uncertain, primarily due to the fact that each operation had differing casualty rates, and the internal investigations that examined both varied in how detailed their examination of casualty figures was.' Does that sound better? Skinny87 (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I keep looking at this, wanting to promote, but I'm afraid this is one of those "needs new eyes" candidates:

    The casualty figures for Canadian forces who participated in the battle are subject to scrutiny, primarily because each operation had differing casualty rates and were both subject to individual internal investigations which varied in intensity.

    Besides the repetition, by the time I get to the end of the sentence, I have to stop and figure out if I can figure out what it's saying. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    EyeSerene & Roger are in the process of giving the whole article a severe copyedit. Hopefully that will improve the quality of the prose. Cam (Chat) 21:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, well, "needs new eyes" is one of the drawbacks to having to essentially "ironman" the content of an FAC for over a year.Cam (Chat) 00:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A few more things after a second pass:

    • ULTRA is used as ULTRA and Ultra in the article. I think we should use one form.
    Fixed. Cam (Chat) 00:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Verrières Ridge lies 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) south of the city of Caen, overlooking the broad plains south of the city and dominating the countryside between Caen and Falaise.
    I think I've fixed it. Check to see whether it works. Cam (Chat) 23:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lieutenant-General Guy Simonds. Could the Lt-General part be linked?
    I'm indifferent. Cam (Chat) 00:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The onus of the task would therefore fall to the fresh, though relatively inexperienced, 2nd Canadian Infantry Division,[12] along with the tanks of the 2nd Canadian (Armoured) Brigade. I think the tense of this sentence is out of line with the rest of the paragraph.
    • "tenacious" German
    • These were broadly repulsed with heavy casualties by "tenacious" German defenders, supported by minor infantry and tank counterattacks, although the Calgary Highlanders succeeded in strengthening their hold on Point 67. A lot going on in this sentence.
    • St Andre-sur-Orne wiki link?
    • At the same time, the South Saskatchewan Regiment moved directly up the slopes of Verrières Ridge,[6] supported by tanks and Hawker Typhoon ground attack aircraft. However, the Canadian attack faltered in torrential rain, which rendered air support useless and turned the ground into mud.[4] Heavy German counterattacks by two Panzer divisions threw the South Saskatchewans back past their support lines,[23] and their supporting battalion, the Essex Scottish, themselves came under attack. I am confused, so the attack failed because of weather and mud, and then the Germans countered through the same conditions that stopped the Canadians?
    By that point in WWII, German armour & infantry had become accustomed to attacking in bad conditions (especially the 1SS Pz. Corps, after significant participation in the Russian campaigns). Keep in mind also that it is easier to move down muddy ground than up it (which I just discovered in physics yesterday). Cam (Chat) 23:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • and 500 guns. Do you know what type, antitank?
    The sources didn't specify. My educated guess would be mortars, field–guns, & antitank guns, seeing as all three inflicted devastating casualties on Canadian forces throughout. Cam (Chat) 23:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As only minimal armoured support had by now arrived, the decision was made for the attack to proceed with infantry alone. Tense
    I think I've fixed this one. Cam (Chat) 00:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Black Watch had to be reformed after Verrières Ridge as the casualty rates the formation had sustained were the highest in any Canadian infantry battalion for the remainder of the war. Change casualty to casualties and then remove the struck part.
    Fixed. Cam (Chat) 23:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • including all three panzer divisions Should panzer or divisions or both be capitalized?
    Fixed. Just realized a slight factual mistake too, in that only the 1st & 9th were transferred. the 12th was still there during Totalize & Tractable (got mauled in the process too). Cam (Chat) 23:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Canadian soldiers killed at Verrières Ridge are buried in Bretteville-sur-Laize Canadian War Cemetery, located between Caen and Falaise. I think this should eb moved to the casualty section or placed at the end of the current section.
    Done. Cam (Chat) 00:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The prose has improved a lot since my last pass through. However, I think we need more information on German casualties. I can't find anything about them in the article, and I think they are essential. Also, we know where Canadian casualties are buried, where are German casualties buried? Further, you have the Canadian historiography, and a quote saying this was not an important battle in German history, but there has to be some German historiography. Even brief mentions would be sufficient. Does anyone know anybody in the German Military History Project? Do they have an article on this? A lot of good work has gone into the article since I last went through it. Keep up the good work and I don't think FA status will be far off. Let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    When I first started writing this article (way back in the dark ages of April 2007), I did quite a bit of digging to try to find German casualties & historiography. Unfortunately, I found very little concerning casualties (then again, that might be limited by my location, as I don't have access to either the National Archives of Canada or German military archives). I do, however, have several quotes from Field Marshal Kluge concerning Panzer counterattacks during the battle. I can probably add those in if you want. Cam (Chat) 00:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    this is going to be a HUGE condensed box when this is all done. Cam (Chat) 00:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't put them in a box, use them in the text in discussing German casualties. Can you see if the German Wikipedia has anything on this? Or their Military History Project? Maybe query the English Military History project and see if anyone speaks German and can check. KnightLago (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see if someone else with German linguist skills (seeing as mine are limited to "Sprekenzie Deutch?") could take a look at that. i'll ask Carom if he can take a look. Oh, and I wasn't referring to the article, I was referring to the condense-box the editors always put after "issues have been resolved". It will reduce the size of the page by about 70%. I'll look into this stuff. Cam (Chat) 03:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/German military history task force? KnightLago (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Roger managed to find & insert a paragraph into the "casualties" section concerning German casualties, as well as the location of their dead (in terms of cemeteries). Hope that helps. Cam (Chat) 06:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think all of my objections have now been resolved. The new German casualty numbers are sufficient. Though I would still check with the German Wiki and see if they have any info on this battle. If you find more you can always add it later. The prose has also improved dramatically. Great work everyone! KnightLago (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent. As mentioned, I've asked Carom to check German wikipedia for me. Glad to hear that the issues have been resolved. Cam (Chat) 17:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 16:00, 13 June 2008 [60].

    Worlds End State Park[edit]

    Co-nominators Ruhrfisch and Dincher

    We are nominating this article for featured article because we believe that is represents some of the best work that wikipedia has to offer regarding state parks. It follows the model of Black Moshannon State Park which is a featured article. It has undergone an extensive peer review (thanks to Jackyd, VerruckteDan, Ben MacDui, Dtbohrer and Ealdgyth) which is archived on the talk page. Ruhrfisch and Dincher (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "The "Twenty Must-See Pennsylvania State Parks" list first appeared in early 2004. See "Search Results for Jan 01, 1996 - Nov 14, 2007". Internet Archive Wayback Machine. Retrieved on May 12, 2008." Are we sure about this statement? Archive.org isn't exactly the most reliable source for this. Do we know for sure that the list has only ever existed in online form? But is this note truly necessary? BuddingJournalist 13:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the copy edits and the comment. I removed the reference in question. Dincher (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I also removed the 2004 date in the text since that was based solely on the removed reference. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The article seems comprehensive and well-written. However, in places in seems over-linked, with lots of non-valuable wiki-links. Bluap (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much, I will try and cut out the extras and least valuable links over the next few days. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Yes, comprehensive and well-written. Minor, about footnote format: for footnote 22, which is the Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey form, should it include as author John Milner Associates, the preparer? Current footnote displays:
    "Worlds End State Park: Family Cabin District" (PDF). Pennsylvania's Historic Architecture and Archaeology. Retrieved on 10 May 2008.
    I think i would prefer to see also preparer name, preparation date, and that this is a Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey form submission, so it would display:
    John Milner Associates (October, 1986), "Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey: Worlds End State Park: Family Cabin District" (PDF 32 KB). Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission. Retrieved on 10 May 2008.
    To get something like that i would adapt the suggested footnote for NRHP documents covered in draft WP:NRHPMOS. FYI, i don't see mention of "Pennsylvania's Historic Architecture and Archaeology" in the document. doncram (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support. I added Millner as the author. Thanks again. Dincher (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much. I updated the ref and used the same format that was used in the recent FA Cogan House Covered Bridge which gives both a link to the Pennsylvania's Historic Architecture and Archaeology site (which is searchable and has some information not on the NRHP form) and to the NRHP form itself. I hope this is OK, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - Sources look good. I did review them at PR, but I double checked them again here. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. Looks good! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for checking them twice! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Accessdates are a bit old aren't they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dispenser (talk • contribs) 13:40, June 8, 2008
    Thanks to Dispenser for updating the link accessdates (they all still worked before), Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • "in Montoursville. [7]" — extra space per WP:FOOTNOTE
    • "pages 295-297" — use en dash per WP:DASH, and use "pp."
    • "until 1895, when" — unlink year per MOS:UNLINKYEARS

    Gary King (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for catching these, I believe they have all been fixed now, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - Disambiguation links: neutralize, warblers, and railroad. Why not put the disambiguation page link at the top instead of the See also section. — Dispenser 13:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Dispenser, I fixed all three links, but I am still not sure I have the correct warblers linked and I moved the disambiguation link to the top per your suggestion. Dincher (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Well-written, very interesting, and I find no major objections from a read through. I would like to see use of double references consolidated, but that's not a big deal. Well done. JRP (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks JRP, I will work on consolidating references when I prune the links, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear JRP, I have carefully re-read the references and so has Dincher. While some of the refs are superficially similar, we did not find any that are actually duplicates. Could you please point out the specific double references you saw? Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A great article, lots of detail and well referenced. VerruckteDan (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your kind words and support, Dan! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Dan! Dincher (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Can you petition the State of Pennsylvania to change the name of the designation of Important Bird Area? I can't read it without thinking of Sam the Eagle announcing it so seriously, imagining many famous and important birds congregated in a dark wood paneled study, drinked aged Scotch. Good article - very well done. You're making Wikipedia lopsided with protected areas in Pennsylvania.--Moni3 (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sam the Eagle scared me when I was a kid! Thanks for the support! Dincher (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your support and a great mental image. My understanding is that IBAs in the USA are designated by the Audubon Society (not the states). It is a goofy name though, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Please see WP:MOS#Quotations on block quotes and cquote. There are some logical puncutation issues, see WP:PUNC. Words as words should use italics, not quotes (see WP:ITALICS); why are so many names, words, and terms in quotes? There are quote marks everywhere I look. Inconsistency in footnotes, some say p. and others say page. Epbr123 (talk · contribs) may be able to help finish this one up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Sandy - I will check these asap. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe all of these issues have been addressed. "Twenty Must-See Pennsylvania State Parks" is a direct quote from the PA DCNR, as is "[v]irtually in a class by itself, this wild, rugged and rustic area seems almost untamed."[4] They are both from this web site [61] and although the second is not grammatically a complete sentence, it is punctuated as if it were on the web site, so I left the period in as it is part of the original quote. The remainder of the items in quotations are all direct quotes and not words as words. I believe all of the page issues have been resolved too. Thanks for your careful eye and all you do here. I will ask Epbr123 to double check the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Many, many thanks to Epbr123, who has already made several MOS-related changes. Hopefully these edits have fixed the issues Sandy noted. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 16:00, 13 June 2008 [62].

    Verdeja (tank)[edit]

    Self-Nominator; the Verdeja article has been peer-reviewed, was promoted to Good Article and has just been promoted to an A-class article within the Military History WikiProject. I believe it meets featured article criteria and, if not, I am willing to spend as much time as necessary to edit it until it does. JonCatalan (talk) 09:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 01:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes http://www.jedsite.info/index.html a reliable source?
    • The Exposicion de Materialse Acorazadas Ministerio de Defensa .. could we do two things, one specify the site is in spanish (assuming it is) and give the country of the Ministerio de Defensa?
    • I'm obviously missing something, the "Ejercito de Tierra short form footnotes in the references, where exactly do they fit in in the bibliography? i.e. What bibliographical ref are they referring to?
    Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Jedsite specializes on military vehicles and is one of the few sites that really covers vehicles that are relatively unknown (like the Verdeja). The information Jedsite provides is the same as Javier de Mazarrasa's book provides. I felt that I continued to use Javier de Mazarrasa for all the information then I would get critics asking for another source, and so whatever information was provided by another source which matched I used the other source (whether this was Jedsite or another book, or an article published in Armas). How would I prove whether or not it is reliable? And, you're right about Ejército de Tierra; the bibliographic reference is the Ministro de Defensa webpage. It should be changed to Ministro de Defensa, and not Ejército de Tierra. As for that reference, I will give the country and make sure it says that the source is in Spanish. If I may ask, I've seen people refering to the link checker. What is that? Thank you! JonCatalan (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC
    To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. I couldn't see an about page for Jedsite, nor any sources on their page. (Although, i'm really tired, and may have missed something). The link checker tool is over on the side of this page, the link that says "External links" if you click it, it'll take you to a tool that checks that the links in the article all work. Great tool! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Jedsite references have been paired with a reference from a book. JonCatalan (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • There should be a non-breaking space between measurement and unit.
    • I'm pretty sure units should be spelled out in text (i.e. km versus kilometer/kilometre).
    • A few refs are misplaced - either a space between the punctuation and the ref or the ref before the punctuation.
    • "The Verdeja was a series of light tanks developed in Spain between 1938 and 1954, in an attempt to replace German Panzer I and Soviet T-26 tanks in Spanish service." - why the comma?
    • "The Verdeja was designed as an advanced light tank and was one of the first development programs which took into account survivability, as opposed to protection." - why the comma again? Also, it's not clear what is meant by "survivability".
    • Three consecutive sentences in the lead begin with "The Verdeja" and four sentences total (out of five) in the first paragraph write it out in full - use pronouns more often!
    • "Interest in the vehicle's development waned after the end of the Second World War and, despite attempts to fit a new engine in the Verdeja 2 and convert the Verdeja 1 into a self-propelled artillery piece, ultimately the program was unofficially canceled in favor of adopting the US M47 Patton Tank in 1954." - run-on sentence.
    • "A prototype of the 75 mm self-propelled howitzer,[4] and of the Verdeja 2 remain, and are currently on display.[5]" - why the comma?
    Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks!
    1. All units should already have a non-breaking space between them and the measurement.
    2. Is there somewhere on the Manual of Style that this is mentioned? Neither the T-26 article (which I was the main contributor to when it was getting featured status) nor the T-34 article (not written by me) spelt out units completely in the text.
    3. All the refs are after the punctuation, as I was told to do per MoS in the T-26 article. I will add a non-breaking space, however. EDIT: I took it out as per Wikipedia:Footnotes#How to use#Ref tags and punctuation.
    4. Comma removed.
    5. Comma removed. I changed the sentence to - The Verdeja was designed as an advanced light tank and was one of the first development programs which took into account survivability of the crew as opposed to the protection of the tank.
    6. I took out some of the Verdejas, and replaced them with pronouns.
    7. This sentence was split into two sentences.
    8. Comma removed!
    JonCatalan (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For #2, I'll look it up. For #3, you misunderstood me - I meant that one of the existing refs had a space between it and the period before I made my comment and was asking you to get rid of it. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For #3 it has been changed, my mistake. For #2 the MoS is not very clear. It says abbreviations for units should be used in tables and infoboxes, but does not specify in the text. Ah, found it - In the main text, give the main units as words and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in parentheses; - I will change. JonCatalan (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - good prose in lead, no MOS issues. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 19:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Gary King (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "References" → "Notes" and "Bibliography" → "References" per WP:LAYOUT
    • "155 L-3-35 tankettes. [14] Meanwhile" and "Madrid. [27] A major" — extra space
    • Use a wikitable (by using class="wikitable") for "Comparison to T-26 and Panzer I" instead of what you are using now (see Help:Table)
    • "pp. 11-12" and "28-34" — use en dash per WP:DASH
    • Use en dashes per WP:DASH for "7-25 mm" etc. in "Comparison to T-26 and Panzer I"

    Gary King (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, here are the changes:
    1. References was changed to notes, and bibliography to references.
    2. I added a space to all the references; is that what you mean?
    3. Done! The table is actually taken from the one used on the T-34 article, but this looks better.
    4. Done!
    5. Done!

    JonCatalan (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I meant remove all extra spaces before references, per WP:FOOTNOTE. Also, the table still doesn't look very good; as a web designer, I'm especially critical of the way it looks now. For instance, remove any forced font size – it is too small right now. Gary King (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I edited the font size of the tables. Took out mention of font-size altogether, actually. I like it less myself, but if it's preferred then what I like doesn't really matter! But, the previous tables have never been an issue impeding featured article status, so I dunno why it is now. But, it really doesn't matter to me - whatever gets it featured. Although it conflicts with what the person above suggested, I'll remove spaced; there were no spaced to begin with. JonCatalan (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are still extra rows in the table above and below the content. Also, perhaps the references can be placed somewhere better for the table. Gary King (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the following links in the article need to be disambiguated: Toledo, Pound, and Feet. Gary King (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The table has been changed, and the references moved. And the links have been disambiguated. JonCatalan (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, much better. Gary King (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gary King (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support
    Meets all WP:FACR criteria. Octane [improve me?] 08.06.08 2129 (UTC)

    • Support I do have a question though: is there so reason why survivability is italisized int he intro? If there isn't, I would suggest unitalisizing it. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will unitalisize it. JonCatalan (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Comment: Is there any particular reason why this article isn't called Verdeja (tank)? The current name doesn't seem particularly transparent to me. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you're right. At least, Verdeja should disambiguate between Felix Verdeja and the tank. The issue is that I don't really know how to change article names. But, I'll do something similar to the Lince article and have a link that goes to Felix Verdeja at the top. JonCatalan (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I moved this to Verdeja (tank) and updated all the FAC, PR and ACR links :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, thank you! JonCatalan (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notes: I found more MoS errors than expected (WP:MSH, WP:MOSNUM, WP:MOSDATE, WP:MOSBOLD), so I recommend asking Epbr123 (talk · contribs) to run through after the undoubtedly unreliable source jedsite.com is removed. (Pairing it with another source doesn't justify inclusion of any information from a contributor self-published site; better would be to stick to the book source information and remove the individual contributor homepages.) I also suspect that attention is needed to wikilinking, and will be looking at that more closely on my next pass. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, here are some questions, though -
    1. I don't understand the issue with Jedsite. If those references are paired, then what does it matter? It offers a free reference for people reading the article, while its reliability is reinforced by the fact that I also paired it with a book reference. So, I don't really understand the issue.
    2. What specifically is wrong with the headers? The headers follow the section headings guidelines. I think referring to the topic is necessary, because 'first prototype' and 'second prototype' would be more indirect and far more confusing.
    3. All precise language has been changed. Specifically, information related to their current locations.
    4. Anything in specific regarding MOSNUM? I added non breaking spaces to some words and dates, but anything specific?
    5. Unecessary italics were removed; although foreign words are still italisized per WP:MOSBOLD.
    JonCatalan (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the points SG is making. I've fixed the section headings for MoS-compliance. I'll deal with the rest shortly. In the meantime, I suggest you ditch Jedsite: it's only three refs anyway and I can't find anything attesting to its reliability. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, Jedsite has been removed. JonCatalan (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please add/review the language icon (es icon) to the sources; I did a few. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done! JonCatalan (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 16:00, 13 June 2008 [63].

    Creatures of Impulse[edit]

    While a fairly minor play by Gilbert, Creatures of Impulse is, nonetheless, a quite interesting play, and remained popular for a good sixty years or so, and is still occasionally performed today. A great deal of work has gone into this article, including Peer reviews by Maria (for GA), User:Awadewit, and User:Ealdgyth (Peer review) It has been carefully copyedited by User:Finetooth. There is a limited amount of commentary on this short story and play; most of it appears in this article in some form. Perhaps if I get published we can say more, but until now, that's OR. =). Eh, It's late and I ramble, and none of you care what I have to say: It's the article that matters - so have a look and see what you think! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Co-nomination – This play pre-dates Gilbert's famous collaboration with Arthur Sullivan and demonstrates the early development of Gilbert's famous "Topsy-Turvy" humor, where an absurd premise is followed to its logical conclusion. Gilbert later used this unique style of humor and satire in the highly successful series of Savoy operas. It also shows Gilbert's lifelong interest in supernatural transformations, a theme which he included in a few of the Savoy operas. I agree that all known sources of significant information about this play have been consulted in writing the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please close and archive the peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no excuse now, after a template was added to the nomination preview page that instructed to do this ;) Gary King (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Did it myself so I wouldn't have to keep checking back (open peer reviews stall the FAC closing bot). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Some web references are missing publishers. Gary King (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not link to the Randegger biography directly on Allmusic.com? indopug (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments As mentioned, I checked the sources at PR. My concerns were addressed, things look pretty good. Links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • The "synopsis" notes should really be footnotes - there's nothing wrong in mixing citations with footnotes.
    • I'm going to have to at least partially disagree - the play is at least equally important as the short story, so moving the differences between the two to references (which noone reads) would give too little weight to important information. I suppose that the footnotes could instead be converted to prose, if you like? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redundant redundancy is bad when it's bad redundancy and redundant:
    • "The play also gives three numbered villagers some dialogue in its opening scene." - pretty self-explanatory
    • "The short story makes explicit some elements only hinted at in the play:" - pretty self-explanatory
    • "Italian-born Alberto Randegger was better known as a conductor than as a composer, although he produced a number of works in England in the 1860s and 1870s." - obviously he produced a number of them; in fact, not only that, but he produced a number in the subset of complex numbers known as the positive integers.
    • "It originally included six songs, but this was eventually reduced to three, and some productions dispensed with the music entirely." - arguable, but I believe "this" contributes nothing to the sentence.
    • If you're sourcing the lead, you need to source everything, not just some things.
    • I agree and have removed the cites from the LEAD. The same cites are all given below in the fuller discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shouldn't "composer-conductor" be "composer/conductor"?
    • I'm unsure whether "Gilbert, who had..." should be "Gilbert, whom had...".
    • I don't think so - it's subjective case, not objective. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "While the lyrics survive, the music was never published and is now lost." - change of tenses in the middle of the sentence. The present tense makes no sense with the second part, so I suggest changing "survive" to "survived" - it still makes perfect sense that way.
      • Wouldn't that put it in conflict with the "is" in is lost, or force us to say "was lost", which... seems a little odd phrasing, given its loss was a passive process. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "criticised for the lack of a significant plot or superstructure behind the fun." - behind "the fun"? I'm really unsure about that wording.
    • Fixed. Thanks for the comments. Please let us know if you have further questions about any of my replies above or feel that any of these items should be revisited. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - I'm fine with the things you disagree with - the redundancy comment was referring to the examples of redundancy I provided below it. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from — MusicMaker5376.

    • Marie Litton produced premières of other Gilbert's plays... I'm not sure if that's correct. That whole sentence is a little sprawling. Perhaps breaking it into two would help?
    • It's definitely clearer, though still a little sprawling. Breaking the last part into its own sentence would allow a little explanation as to why 222 perfs was a success de scandale. A modern reader might consider 222 perfs a flop. -- MM
    • Good idea. As you know from the musical theatre article, 222 perfs was an unusually long run at that time, but this sentence is about a very minor point, and we should not distract the reader with a history lesson, so I tried to simplify the issue. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I have to question the wisdom in using the short story synopsis. The bulk of the article is about the play; wouldn't it make more sense to use the play's synopsis and notate the differences between it and the short story?
    • Otherwise, good article! — MusicMaker5376 15:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've converted over. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do think that works a little better. It seems more active. You may want to give it a good copy edit; I found a couple of errors, and there may be more that I missed. However, "As you may remember..." in reference to the old woman in the synopsis seems like an unnecessary and abrupt breaking of the fourth wall. The synopsis isn't that long, and that's such a strange character trait that it will most likely stick in people's minds. Perhaps: "The strange old lady's dietary habits had foiled a previous attempt...." — MusicMaker5376 17:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Great article. — MusicMaker5376 22:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments - Every time I read this article, it has improved! I just have a couple of questions and suggestions. — Awadewit 15:30, June 10, 2008 — continues after insertion below

    • I assume since there is no "Style and themes" section, there is not enough published information to add such a section? (You know I have to ask!)
      • Not really. Gilbert wrote around seventy to a hundred plays (I don't really feel like counting), which means that the biographies and critical notes on Gilbert tend to prioritise the lesser works downwards a bit, giving them only a page or so. We can expand this using contemporary sources, but not so far as a "style and themes" section. Indeed, at the moment, I believe the unpublished critical version I'm working on is probably the most detailed analysis of this to date, but I can't really cite that, now can I? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this a reliable source? It may be, but I am not sure.
    • I read the discussion that you link, but it seems to support the idea that the All Music site IS reliable for classical music. In the linked discussion, an editor claims that *although it is reliable for most music* it is not reliable for heavy metal. The All Music site routinely prepares short biographies like this. Of course, it would be great to add ANOTHER reliable source, but All Music bios are referred to all over Wikipedia. You don't need to be notable to be a staff writer for a reliable source. Also, the fact that Randegger is long dead makes it unlikely that this little bio would display some kind of bias. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The linked discussion suggests that allmusic is reliable. Note, however, that it is not reliable because it is used "all over Wikipedia". It is reliable because it is fact-checked, etc. Awadewit (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I promised Shoe I would check Grove Online. Grove says this: "But his greatest influence was as a singing teacher: he helped to raise standards at the RAM and RCM, and his textbook Singing (London, 1893), one of Novello’s Music Primer’s, was widely used in English-speaking countries". Grove discusses his conducting and composing about equally and then ends with this statement. If you want, I can email the entire entry to someone. Awadewit (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! Why don't you email it to Shoe and to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is every page on the G&S archive as reliable as every other? For example, the Crowther pages are clearly reliable under our policies since he has published on G&S, but what about something like this?
      • That's not part of the Gilbert and Sullivan archive; however, Simon Moss is a respected dealer, so I'd say that that page is about as reliable as an auction catalogue, which, given it's only used to cite that a production happened, and the image of the programme is in support of this, should presumably be sufficient reliability. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, sorry. I got confused by the "GSarchive" in the web address, but that answers my question, thanks. Awadewit (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mistress Dorothy is being courted by the miser Verditter. This is convenient because staying at the inn is a strange old lady, a mischievous fairy, who refuses to pay or to leave. - I don't think the "convenience" is made entirely clear to the reader.
    • Verditter tries bribery and is forced to keep handing out coins to everyone. - I wonder if highlighting the irony of these fairy punishments somewhere would be a good idea - a miser handing out money, etc. The synopsis hints at this irony, but never makes it explicit.

    This article looks good and I anticipate being able to support soon. Awadewit (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments on images:

    • Image:WSGyounger.jpg has a source, but no details on authorship or date/place of publication.
    • Just as an aside, I absolutely cannot figure out why the lead image, Image:Ben Greet as Boomblehardt.jpg, is displaying with a black border around the image when the image itself has no border. It is doing this in both FireFox and Internet Explorer. Is it just me?
    • Apparently a caching issue. The black border has now been cropped from the image. Kelly hi! 14:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kelly hi! 01:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Notes: inconsistency in footnotes, some have page numbers as p. others as page. "Sums it up best"? Best according to whom, or is this original research/POV/editorializing? The review in Bell's Life in London and Sporting Chronicle perhaps summed it up best: ... Why does the chart in Characters and original cast use emdashes rather than endashes? The synopsis notes 1 and 2 don't have live links, are very hard to find, and the 1 and 2 can be confused with footnotes. I suggest a different note system, numbering them a and b, and making them live. See Gettysburg Address. Why is there italicized text in Synopsis? See WP:ITALICS on when they should be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I addressed the first two of Sandy's comments. Shoe, can you take care of the Synopsis notes and italics comments? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. The characters chart uses an em-dash because the character is not present in the story (and is barely present in the play), and I though an en-dash looked too "small". Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The italics in the sysnopsis are distracting, I'm not sure when they were added, but I've removed all of them but the Opening note, which is a brief commentary before the synopsis. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe I've fixed the footnotes. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick note: I'm feeling a bit ill, so it might be a day or two before I can respond to anything in-depth. It will be fixed, though. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:37, 13 June 2008 [64].

    Crackdown[edit]

    Self-Nomination - Article has passed through GA and others have helped to perform some copyediting to improve the language. MASEM 17:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Gary King (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I should point out they link to articles; instead of 2005, they link to 2005 in video gaming, for example. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, thanks. I'm sure it looks really strange for some others as it did to me, though. I would generally suggest to just unlink them, because generally speaking, when a year is linked, it is assumed that it goes to the year it shows and not one specifically for a certain topic like video games. Gary King (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I agree, that's why I dont use them in the articles I write. I believe another user removed them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That was me. --MASEM 14:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - sourcing appears sound, doesn't appear to have changed substantially since from when any concerns were resolved at the old FAC. Links still checked out fine with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Issues resolved. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Needs more work before its ready:
      • "Crackdown is an open-world, third-person shooter video game for the Xbox 360 console." - Console? Average joe who doesn't play games will not know what you're on about. Try "video game console" or "game console" instead.
      • "The game It was released in North America on February 20, 2007, "
      • The prose is unnecessarily wordy in places... "Set in the fictional Pacific City, the game requires the player to controls a cybernetically enhanced Agent in his mission to defeat three crime lords and their organized crime syndicates."
      • "Crackdown, originally planned for release on the Xbox console," This could cause confusion. Try instead: "Crackdown, originally planned for release on the original Xbox console,"
      • Please add citations to the infobox for release dates.
      • The Soundtrack table doesn't seem to be sourced?
      • Another example of poor prose... "Crackdown received generally positive reviews from game critics, with many praising the open-world approach and their enjoyment of the game." - Try instead: "Crackdown received generally positive reviews from critics who praised the open-world approach and their enjoyment of the game." - Hold on...they praised their own enjoyment of it? Hmm? I think they enjoyed it, but they didn't praise their enjoyment.
      • Current ref 3 says 1997, but I think it should say 2007?
      • I am not sure about this...but what makes http://majornelson.com/archive/2007/02/03/xbox-live-activity-for-week-of-1-29.aspx a reliable source?
      • I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages!

    — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Other points I will get to , but to comment on the majornelson.com reference, as it was brought up before: Larry Hyrb (aka Major Nelson) is an expert on XBox Live events and information, given his VP position at Microsoft, however the blog is not done on MS's dime, it's a courtesy to the community to share that information. Whenever possible, information that he posts there can be found elsewhere, but there is information that originates from internally at Microsoft, which Larry is of course aware of and shares such as the XBox Live activity. No one else can provide this source of information besides Microsoft. Thus, for purposes of this type of information (the activity of the demo on XBox Live) that site is the most reliable you can achieve. I will point out other majornelson.com posts have been replaced with more reliable details (the contents and release dates of patches), but I can't replicate that one in other sources. --MASEM 17:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • All other points (directly mentioned) dealt with; the soundtrack list has been commented out since I have yet to find a RS for it (forum posts, yes...). The article is still pending a CE help from the LoCE but that seems rather dead ATM so I've dropped a message to another editor from PR to look it over (I will note that one LoCE editor did look this over since this FAC started along with 2-4 other editors.) --MASEM 04:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Conditional Support - Providing this is copyedited fully by someone new to the text to polish the prose. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The editor's responded that he'll get to it, so give or take a few days... --MASEM 14:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I've copyedited around half of it so far, but the prose looks very good, I'm not changing much. And reviewing the article doesn't look like anything is missing. · AndonicO Engage. 19:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - image sourcing and non-free content meets policy. This is actually one of the better examples (especially for a video game) I've seen in which the images are actually used to increase readers' understanding of points in the text. Nice work. Kelly hi! 05:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Ando has done his magic, I straightened some minor phrases but think that the prose meets quality. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as I (think I) did before the restart. Good copyedit, AndonicO. giggy (:O) 09:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:37, 13 June 2008 [65].

    Saint-Sylvestre coup d’état[edit]

    This article details a coup d’état staged by Jean-Bedel Bokassa against the government of David Dacko. Bokassa became a ruthless dictator, just like Idi Amin. Dacko regained power 13 years later, but was again overthrown in another coup. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support It reads like a well-written story. I couldn't find any major issues.

    Oppose for now. I found a few issues. Switching to Comments for now because I haven't given another look yet.

    Gary King (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "MEDAC became quite popular and was even approved by Etinne Ngounio, the Dacko-appointed president of MESAN.[9] The party even received significant support in by-elections on September 20.[10]" — "even [...] even" I would suggest taking out the evens and rewording these.
    • "He would frequently appear in public with all his military decorations on his chest and in ceremonies" → "He would frequently appear in public and in ceremonies with all his military decorations on his chest"
      • Sorry about that. It was supposed to say: " He would frequently appear in public with all his military decorations on his chest, and in ceremonies he would often try to sit right next to President Dacko to hint at his importance in the government." Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gary King (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Issues resolved. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - This is very good, but the prose still needs work. At the moment, it fails criteria 1a for "brilliant" prose. I found traces of passive voice throughout, and some choppy sentences. I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages!. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 11:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Good prose, fully referenced and sufficient images make for a very nice read. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker (although you might want to put in that a fee is required to access the JSTOR article). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I read it through, made some small fixes for grammar/readability, and I believe all the criteria are met. Well-done treatment of a little-known but important episode that I am sure readers will find a gripping account. Biruitorul Talk 23:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A very good work even if I feel the lead could have a slight trimming. I have more serious objections regarding the second part of the "Aftermath" section, i.e. the "Banza and Dacko" subsection: differently from the rest of the aftermath section this part has only weak connections with the coup events.--Aldux (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe this section is appropriate because it discusses the fate of the two other main figures of the coup, Dacko and Banza. What would you suggest I do with this section? Trim it? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, in my view that would be the right way to proceed. And a last issue: maybe the article should be renamed; it seems to be quite largely known as the Coup d'état of Saint Sylvestre. Kalck in his Historical Dictionary of the Central African Republic reserves a seperate entry for the coup with the title "SAINT-SYLVESTRE, COUP D'ETAT OF". See also page 28: "Originator of the coup d'etat called the Saint-Sylvestre coup" (in French, by the same authour, "modifiée par le coup d'État de 1966, dit "coup d'État de la Saint-Sylvestre" [La République Centrafricaine, p. 29, 1971]). Also Titley calls the coup repeatedly either "coup of Saint-Sylvestre" or "Saint-Sylvestre coup". This is also the name given by other writers: Loubat, L'ogre de Berengo: "Bokassa m'a dit", Biarnes Si tu vois le margouillat: souvenirs d'Afrique, Cornevin, Histoire de l'Afrique contemporaine, and others.--Aldux (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That was the title I was planning on using at first. However, it seemed misleading since the most of the coup occurred on New Year's Day. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's true the coup's execution continued on the following day, but shouldn't we follow in wikipedia the best known name? In the lead's article we can make it clear that the coup took place in 2 days, but we shouldn't attempt to "correct" the sources, because we dislike or feel wrong the way they have called it: especially when, like in this case, it would seem this name is a well estabilished tradition.--Aldux (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I see your point. I have moved the article to a more appropriate title. I've also made a note regarding the name of the coup. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thanks Nishkid, and as for the FAC, I support, because despite I feel the second part of the "aftermath" section would be OK with some trimming, I feel this article is already worthy of being a FA. And my compliments for the great work you're doing on African-related articles!--Aldux (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Ruhrfisch I now see my copyedits have made me the second contributor in terms of number of edits. If it is allowed, I will Support as the issues I raised have been addressed satisfactorily, I feel the prose now meets 1A and the article meets all the other criteria as well. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved Issues from Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As requested I did a copyedit on this article and hope that it now meets 1A (please revert if I have made or introduced errors or made things worse). I have some comments / questions based on my reading of the article.

    • In the first paragraph of the Background section, it says ... on December 1, 1958, Boganda declared the establishment of the [autonomous?] Central African Republic (CAR), [with full independence to follow soon?]. Then at the end of this same paragraph it says Slightly more than one year later [i.e. after March 29, 1959], Boganda's dream was realized when the Central African Republic (CAR) attained formal independence from France.[4] This has to be clarified as it sounds like the CAR was set up twice - I added a suggested word and phrase in [square brackets], is that what is meant?
    • In this quote, shouldn't "Colonel" be capitalized anyway? "[c]olonel Bokassa only wants to collect medals ..." so presumably ""Colonel Bokassa only wants to collect medals "?
    • Per WP:HEAD, "Leading up to the coup" should probably not include the word coup (repeats part of the title)
    • Might want to indicate the PRC was not widely recognized diplomatically at the time for context - see WP:PCR
    • Could the then current equivalent in some better known currency be given in: Soon after, the PRC gave the CAR an interest-free loan of one billion CFA francs?
    • In Aftermath, Soon after, other African countries followed suit. makes it sound as if other countries also made pacts to help one another if either was in danger of losing power, when I believe it means they also recognized Bokassa's government diplomatically. Which is it?
    • What happened to Bokassa after he was deposed?
    Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review, Ruhrfisch. The article now has 46 total edits, six of which were made by you (as part of the FA review). :) Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad to be of help, thanks for an interesting article. I think this may be the fewest edits to FAC I have ever seen. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Images look good copyright-wise and all comply with policy. Kelly hi! 01:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:37, 13 June 2008 [66].

    Montana class battleship[edit]

    Self Nomination I'm nominating this article for featured article because it meets all established FA criteria and has passed both the Good Article review process and the Military History Wikiproject's A-class review process with no major complaints. At this point, there is no place left to go but up to FA-class, and so here I here am. This is most decidedly a self nom, and for once I am not in school, so I should be able to adress complaints raised in a timely manner. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Spectacular Article. Absolutely no objections coming from this corner. Excellent Work! Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - Prose/citation problems.

    — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Respectively:
      • Alright then, I presume you wisha stict adherence to the rule that commas ought to appear only for combined sentences and only if the woirds "and" "or" "but" are present, or if the sentence in question uses a three list thing that needs to be seperated using commas. I'll make a dry pass through and see if I can spot and fix any instances, but the best thing, as you noted in point 2, would be to bring it up with one of the three copyeditting departments: the peer review group, the league of copyediters, or the MILHIST logistics dept.
      • as per above
      • Please locate all such examples for me if you would, at this point I miss such things if they are not explicitly poiinted out to me. Sorry for forcing that on you, but as I am sure you can related one's mind tends to read whats should be there and not what is actually there.
        • As it happens, in these specific cases, the access date was already provided. I had messpelled the word code as "accessesdate", thats why they were not showing. Good catch though :) TomStar81 (Talk) 23:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I noticed ref 10 is missing publisher info. There might be others, so please go through all the references and look for any missing information. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • By citiations, do you mean the notes section? And if so the reason for the repeated linking is to limit the amount of scrolling new readers to the article have to do to find the relevent links. I think its helpfull, but if consensus from others suggests otherwise I will fix the problem.
        • Yes, see WP:MOS, which explains overlinking. I generally think it is best to avoid linking too much whenever possible. I'm not sure about you, but the entire References section fits on my screen with only very little scrolling required to see the last bit of it. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The MoS directive as it pertains to overlinking: "The same link multiple times, because redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. It is not uncommon to repeat a link that had last appeared much earlier in the article, but there is hardly ever a reason to link the same term twice in the same section. (Table entries are an exception to this; in general each row of a table should be able to stand on its own)." I have usually interpreted this to mean that section exclusive terms or terminology that was repeated before but may have been skipped ought to be relinked every time a new section crops up (by new section, I mean a header with two equal signs on each side). This is a hold over from the Iowa class battleship article, as I instituted the policy there becuase the article continues to grow, and it can be mighty difficult to locate one linked term near the start of an article whose entire space is, as of this righting, 96kbs. Now, I grant that the Iowa class battleships are the exception and not the rule, but by the same token they are the only featured class article for ships, so we are trailblazing here since this is untouched territory, but I still think the article could grow and am thus reluctent to unlink terms now only to have to relink them later on (if, I grant you, the need to do so does in fact arise). The key issue now is how you interpret the guideline and whether or not your interpretation follows mine. How do feel about the issue? TomStar81 (Talk) 09:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm hesitant to put words into another editor's mouth, but I think Wackymacs meant in the case of the "Ships" section with multiple refs to DANFS and the NVR, all linked, all one after the other. I think I've addressed this for that section, with only the first instance to each source linked and the others plain text. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • How exactly do mean? Obviously short speaks for itself, but if you were me what would you like to see done with the section?
        • I would try to merge the shorter section with the longer ones by changing the general layout/section header names. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suppose we could merge the information there into the design section, it wouldn;t be hard to do. Alternatively, I could omit/delete the section altogather. Would those be acceptable solutions? TomStar81 (Talk) 09:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose I could agree with that, though truth be told I like to see them seperated. Its just a me thing, asthetics and such; I dislike changing formating too much (this same format is used on the page Iowa class battleship, and hasn't drawn any compliants...yet).
      • With regard to the sources you brought up: pages from navweapons.com include at the bottom a list of sources used in the creation of the articles, and nearly all are from well recognized names like the US Bureoa of Ordinance. That ought to make the site's information reliable. Information from the site navybuddies.com is almost always pulled directly out of the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, and the infomration provided on the site corrosponds almost letter for letter with the US Navy's description of the Montna class. That doesn't suprise me since the site is billed as an unofficial US navy site, if others were to build such a site they would naturally turn to DANFS and other similarly open public sources to create the pages needed. Lastly, the site www.warships1.com/US/BB61stats/index-BB1-GAO4.htm is directed toward a report generated by the United States General Accounting Office, the official investigative arm of the United States Congress. The names and information cited there in are directly taken from the GAO's investigation into the United States Navy's plan for replacing battleships with the Zumwalt class destroyer. Of all the sources questioned above, this one should be the most obvious in terms of officialiness. The last two sources are www.warships1.com/US/USbb67-Montana.htm and www.voodoo.cz/battleships/usa/montana.html, and these are, as you surmized, closer to personal websites than the others here to for adressed, however, when dealing with ships and thier classes I need to note right now that most of the information provided for such sites originates from official sources and is merely copied by all other websites, official and unofficial. These two here were included becuase the information they provided during the initial brainstorm phase help the development of the armement sections and (to a degree) the engineering plant section. These two can be removed or better still replaced should the need to do so arise, however the instructions such as I interpret them are to include all the sources used, regardless of how small or irrelevent the source. Thats why they are still in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is always best when you have access to the original sources themselves. Sure, US Bureoa of Ordinance is reliable, but navweapons is not. There needs to be some sort of recognition or reputation for a source to be classed as 'reliable' - can that be said for all those sites which simply grab information from places like United States General Accounting Office and so on. And then comes the issue of copyright violation - do these sites have permission to copy from those sources? Replace them with the original sources, as I am sure they are accessible. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Alright then, I will go digging for the original sources (or alternate sources, if that ends up being the case). As fair warning though, this could take a while, switching out sources or adding/confirming new ones will take at least few days (best case scenario), so make sure to check back regularly to see if any progress has been made. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • To respond to the question about the reliability of the http://www.navweaps.com/ website: The page cited in Montana class battleship, http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm, has a list of sources consulted at the bottom of that page. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The long caption on the last image is obstructing the 2 column references list at higher resolutions (I'm on 1440 x 900)
      • I added the {{-}} template to the end of the paragraph, this should fix the problem.
    • No references given for "By the time of the Two Ocean Navy bill, the Navy realized that the ship designs could no longer be limited by the Panama Canal and thus approved the Montana-class knowing that the ships would be unable to clear the locks."
      • The result of copyeditting, I'm afraid. I make use of per paragraph citations since it is easier to write individual ship pages with this methode, and as such usually cite the relevent information at the end of a paragraph unless I have a pressing reason to cite in the paragraph. This has been corrected.
    • No references given for these two sentences:"In June 1942, the US Navy Bureau of Aeronautics requested industry proposals for a new seaplane to replace the Kingfisher and Curtiss SO3C Seamew. The new aircraft was required to be able to use landing gear as well as floats."
      • The result of copyeditting, I'm afraid. I make use of per paragraph citations since it is easier to write individual ship pages with this methode, and as such usuall cite the relevent information at the end of a paragraph unless I have a pressing reason to cite in the paragraph. This has been corrected.
    • What makes the following sources reliable? (they look like unverifiable personal sites/web pages)
      • http://www.navweaps.com/
      • http://www.warships1.com/US/BB61stats/index-BB1-GAO4.htm
        • It is the opinion of the cooridinators at MILHIST that navweapons.com is a reliable source, and the as stated above the warships1.com reference is not cited to a personal site or hobby page, it is cited to an investigation conduct by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, and as such meets all established reliable sources critiera.
          • I have replaced the warships1 GAO reference with the report as it appears on the GAO website; however this has resulted in a shift from html to pdf, so the new version may or may not be easier for people to access.
            • Regarding navweaps.com: At the bottom it says "This Website is Owned and Operated by Tony DiGiulian " - it's just a personal/hobby site. I still think this is not a reliable source, certainly not suitable for an encyclopedia. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 'Aircraft' section seems like an afterthought - is there any way to expand it, or possibly merge it with another section?
      • I will look into it after lunch.
        • I've looked at this problem from a number of different perspectives and come to the conclusion that it can't really be helped. Expanding the section would only add information to a plane that already has its own article on Wikipedia, so summary style comes in to play here, and the material is short so as to keep the uneeded words and phrase out of the prose. It could be expanded, but I doubt that any expanded material would be useful or would withstand any prose trimming within this article itself. On the issue of merging, the material could be merged, but that developes problems with MoS sectioning since information on different subjects is normally split out through the use of section headers which allow for prescion carving of an article to adress major points. From where I sit, the best I could do with merging would be to lose the subsections for the type of aircraft and simply discuss of the aircraft under the heading of aircraft. I am open to suggestions though if you have better idea for merging or for expanding the article.
    • No references given for this paragraph: "The Montana class would have used aircraft for reconnaissance and for gunnery spotting. The type of aircraft used would have depended on when exactly the battleships would have been commissioned, but in all probability they would have used either the Kingfisher or the Seahawk. The aircraft would have been floatplanes launched from catapults on the ship's fantail. They would have landed on the water, taxied to the stern of the ship, and would have been lifted by a crane back to the catapult."
      • I will look into adding references for this after lunch then.
        • Sorry for the long delay in getting back to you on these points, I have been otherwise engaged with preparations for my upcoming time in summer school, and have of nessicity cut back a little on Wikipedia time as a result. As of this reply I have been unable to locate any sources that explicitly state the Montana class was to use aircraft, but the image in the section makes this fact very clear by showing the tail section configured with the crane and model planes which are being stored on the aft deck. Under the circumstances, it may be nessicary for me to switch sources and go looking for the airplane specs and like material rather than relying on USN sources.
          • I think it's dodgy having a paragraph making that sort of statement without a source. Have you had a chance to look for "the airplane specs and like material rather than relying on USN sources. "? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Got it; it was in the article had originally used to rewrite the erlier history section. Two cites are now in the article for the aircraft. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak Oppose - Leaning to support, just the prose polish needed.

    • I think the prose needs some work in places. I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages!

    — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • You need to be more specific; I can't adress obtuse comments like this unless I have some idea what you want to see done.
        • I am simply suggesting that you contact one or two people on those lists (perfectly actionable). They will fix redundancy, styling, misuse of commas and other grammatical issues. It is best if you don't do all the editing work yourself, since most of the writing is yours, getting someone new to the text means they will notice problems that you didn't. Copyeditors here usually do a fine job of polishing an article in preparation for the FA standard. A good example is my recent FAC nomination (which was quickly promoted to FA status) - copyedits were made by four editors (five if you include me) and each of them found different things to improve. The same sort of thing here would help greatly, though one full copyedit by one editor new to the text will probably be enough. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have left messages with three people -two from peer review and one from the league of extrodinary copyediters- to look at the page. I am going to hold off adressing the remaining complaints for the next 24 hours so as to allow the members to copyedit and rearrange, then adress the complaints. No sense in diving in the content's going to change, ya know? :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Still waiting on the copyedit, not sure why it is taking them so long to get on it. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    }}

    • Support - An excellent read with good prose, layout, images and references. This has improved by masses since the FAC started. Well done! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dhatfield

    Good work, well cited, but I think references need to include cited works. A quick skim gave me these two points:

    1. The prose is long winded. Example: "They would have been the only US Navy battleship class to have come close to equaling the Empire of Japan's Yamato-class battleships in terms of armor, armament, and tonnage." the phrase 'have come close to equaling' can be replaced by one word: 'rival'. I know from personal experience that this is a pain (I rewrote Tank from 60kB to 37kB) but examine each word and phrase and try and think of a better one. Another example of prose that can be improved: "By July 1943, it was clear that the battleship was no longer the dominant element of sea power and the Montana-class was canceled." can be improved to "By July 1943, it was clear that the battleship had been replaced by the aircraft carrier as the dominant element of sea power and the Montana-class was canceled." By the addition of three words you have increased the number of pieces of information in the sentence from 2 to 3. Even better, "By July 1943, it was clear that the superior capability of the aircraft aircraft carrier to strike at ranges in excess of 30km had rendered the battleship obsolete and the Montana-class was canceled." (Note that the stated range is a guess) Four pieces of information: What supplanted the battleship, why, the battleship was obsolete, the Montana-class was canceled. I recommend reading Tony's Style Guide.
      The information has been trimmed by several people who have read through the article, and I am currently waiting for the editers I contacted to attempt a copyedit which I believe will reduce the prose even further.
      Much improved, but "Design" needs work. For example: "By returning the Montana-class to the slower 28-knot (52 km/h) maximum speed of the North Carolina and South Dakota classes, naval architects were able to include more desirable traits for the Montanas which had been engineered out of the earlier two classes of US battleships." Desirable - POV. I'd put the 25% better... spec up front (clearly the key design criterion), explain how it was to be achieved, then explain what compromises would have to be made in speed due to engines & weight. You may want to point out the importance of matching the speed of other designs (fleet movement) Dhatfield (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Roger, wilco :) Thanks for returning, I apreciate the added comments. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I rearranged the two paragraphs so that the design traits are discussed before the speed. Is this better?
    2. Inconsistent use of 'would have' and 'could be'. Pick a tense and stick to it. Dhatfield (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe I have caught and corrected all instance of this, so it should no longer be an issue.
      Done Dhatfield (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    }}

    • Support. Ditto Wackymacs comments, good work. Dhatfield (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • I see that Wackymacs got a few of the sites I would have questioned (thanks Wacky!)
    • What makes the following reliable sources?
      • http://www.bismarck-class.dk/
        • This one, if clicked on as it was included in the article, shows images taken by submersible of the battleship Bismark without her turrets, and is intended to show the empty barbetts to which the guns would have been installed. The images there are of questionable copyright status, and I am therefore reluctant to upload them to WIkipedia since our fair use policy has gotten a hell of a lot stricter as of late. If it would make you feel better, I could try locating information on this subject from somewhere else, but if you want me to do that I need to have a clear answer here.
    Hm, if we think that site might be a copyright violation, we shouldn't be linking to it. Probably better to find another source. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The disclaimer on the cited page from the http://www.bismarck-class.dk/ website reads as follows:

    ::::::These photographs have been exclusively loaned for display here on the Bismarck & Tirpitz website, and are not to be downloaded or republished elsewhere. © All photos are the property of James Cameron, Earthship TV and Discovery Channel.

    Also, by a quick look at the website, it seems the website owner/publisher, Jon Asmussen, was a participant in the Cameron/Discovery expedition. From both the disclaimer and the participation in the expedition, I would infer that that website is not in violation of any copyrights as to the photos. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to make it clear here that I am citing the images, not the text, so the copyright violation such as it were would be the use of fair use images in an otherwise public domain imaged article. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm leaving this one out for others to decide on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the web reference and provided a book reference in its place.
    So did it get replaced entirely? (It's been a LONG day, my brain cells aren't working that hot, sorry if I'm being dense...) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it has been removed in its entirety. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably should have a source for the data in footnote 12, the names of the 17 planned ships.
      • Not all of those ships were planned, all the ships up to USS Illinois were completed, Illinois and Kentucky were under construction but not completed, and all five of the Montanas were planned but cancelled. I will see about sourcing this, but me thinks the source may evlove into sources since I think more than one source will be needed.
        • Two sources have been provided for the ships, and the reference itself retooled to include a date from which to start the count. Is this better? TomStar81 (Talk) 09:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • http://www.factplace.com/index.html
        • This has been removed as a source from the article.
      • http://www.de220.com/index.html
        • This has been removed as a source from the article
    • Current ref 3 (CV-59 FORRESTAL class) is lacking a publisher, and shouldn't be in all capitals.
      • This one is fixed, also. (Forgot to note when updating last evening.) — Bellhalla (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is Sea Classics a journal? Who publishes them?
    • Is http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/american&military_history/World's%20Fastest%20Battleships.pdf a journal article? or a dissertation?
      • I believe this is a journal article, as dissertations as I have seen them tend to be much longer (although as collage student I suspect my idea of dissertation and yours may very)
    • Current ref 28 (USS Wisconsin is numerically the highest...) has two bald URL links in the sourcing. Should be formatted with title, publisher, etc.
    • Current ref 29 is lacking a publisher.
    It's one of the questioned sources, so while it now has a publisher, (and thus I've struck the note here) it's still not proven as a reliable source Ealdgyth - Talk 03:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 32 (Underwater photos of the Bismark ...) has just a bare url link in the ref. Needs a title and a publisher and a last access date
    I note that the source itself is still being questioned above. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 39 "Ammunition data is taken from ... " should have a page number and other bibliographic information
      • Added proper book citation information. Page numbers still need to be added. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current refs 48 and 49 should probably have sources.
      • These I beleive have been removed in there entirety.

    }}

    I share the concerns mentioned above about sources by Wackymacs. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All questionable external links have been removed. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Replies interspersed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC) )[reply]
    1. I agree with the above comments about references. Hobbyist sites are well, hobbyist sites and though I know they can be very accurate most of the time, anyone could put up a site about the Montana class and make reference to some "official papers" they used.
      All such sites have been removed.
    2. In the Design section you make reference to 18" guns being a part of the Montana class yet in the Armament section you claim that 16" guns were to be used. Are these the guns from the Iowa class or did I miss the explanation about why the 18" guns were no longer planned? Most of the Armament section seems to be speculation about what might have been there had the class actually been built by listing Iowa class weapons.
      • No, actually, I make reference that they were a part of the yamato class design. And the Iowa armement and the Montana armement are identical in all important respects, the only major dofference is that the secondary battery on the former was 5"/38 guns, while the latter had 5"/54 guns. Therefore, would it not stand to reason that a battleship whose main armament would be used for the follup class should share its information?
      Ummm ok. I must have had the crack pipe going.
    3. Again in the Design section, 4th paragraph you explain the differences of the Panama canal sizing but repeat the entire paragraph under the Armor section.
      The former has been removed in favor of the latter.
    4. In the Fate section, in the first sentence you use maxed out. Why was it maxed out? Are you trying to say "reached maximum limits" ? I'm confused. --Brad101 (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes I am, The wording has been changed accordingly.
      Eighteen inch guns were for a while concerned for installation on the Iowa class battleships, but there are no indications that the 18" guns were to be installed on the Montanas. I will fix that forthright. Good catch. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Note 3 is referenced to Navsource but you've mixed in United State Navy and DANFS of which Navsource is neither.
      Actually, Navsource is pulling material from DANFS (or so I interpreted the message on the page to mean that). I will fix it up.
      I think I have adressed this.}}
    1. You're going to need articles on Second Vinson Act, Battleship Design Advisory Board, and Two Ocean Navy. They seem important to the subject of this article. Otherwise you should determine a way to explain Second Vinson Act, Battleship Design Advisory Board, and Two Ocean Navy if there isn't enough information available to start articles.
      As I stated above, I am in the process of looking into reciting the links or varifying the links provided to be accurate. Also, me and MBK004 have been trying for a while now to locate information on the Second Vinson Act and the Two Ocean Navy links you have provided, and so far neither one fo us has managed to find anything about the group (incidentally, this can also be said of Battleship Division 7). I have done some very very preliminary work into finding material for the Battleship Design Advisory Board, but so far nothing has turned up, and I fear this may be another one fo those links that the net can't provided any information on and the library won;t have any records on. Nonetheless, I will try to get something togather for you on these three articles, or failing that, will take you up on your suggestion to better explain the links in the articles. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The more I look into this by reading Carl Vinson and then even trying the Library of Congress online, you've actually explained the Second Vinson Act better than what I could find. You might make use of [67] and [68] to supplement the explanation. If you could find the House Resolution number to the bill, ie: HR. xxxx, rather than the name it may help. There was also a Third Vinson Act. Sam Nunn was related to Carl Vinson; try that.
      Those references are currently in the article. I think the problem may be that the terminology is from pop history and may not reflect the actual name of the legislation. I will continue to investigate.
      Got one: we apparently have an article on the Two-Ocean Navy Act, so I just need articles for the first two now.
      In this reference there is a good explanation of what the Second Vinson Act was all about and it's note 10 in the references. Not enough for an article of course but it would help if you expanded the explanation in this article. SVA was in 1938; not 1939; I corrected it. --Brad (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Sigh.. this just gets better by the minute, Your noted source above states: Conservative sentiment and Republican Congressman Carl Vinson when in fact Vinson was a Democrat. I'm going to question that whole pdf as a source since the author couldn't even get his basic facts straight. --Brad (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Alright then, I need to know - now - if this is an official questioning of the source or if this is one of those questioned sources that people are willing to let slide. If its the former, then I will get to work on checking the other guys sources for independent varification of the facts presented.
      I have reservations about the source but I'm not going to hold up the promotion over it. The fact if Vinson was a Democrat or a Republican is irrelevant to this article but the facts in that source should be compared to others and if they primarily agree with each other then fine. --Brad (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • COMMENT I have at this point gotten the message that selected websites here are of questionable value. To simplify the process of which websites need what kind of attention, I ask that those commenting on the questionable websites provide the link below, the problem with it, and your proposed solution to fix the problem (in that order). This will make it easier for me to adress everyones concerns, and in the long run will (hopefully) help other editers who may wish to assist with the FAC. Thanks. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.warships1.com/US/BB61stats/index-BB1-GAO4.htm
      • Cites a report generated by the United States Government Accountability Office regarding the USN's compliance with the Strom Thurmand National Defense Authorization Act of 1999. The report itself in entirely independent of the website warships1.com (consider checking GOA.gov for clearer link [note infomration may not be present])
    • http://www.warships1.com/US/USbb67-Montana.htm
      • Removed all instances of appearence in the article and cited all relevent information to alternative sources.
    • http://www.navybuddies.com/bb/bb67class.htm
      • Removed all instances of appearence in the article and cited all relevent information to alternative sources.
    • http://www.voodoo.cz/battleships/usa/montana.html
      • Removed all instances of apperence from the article.
    • http://www.navweaps.com/
      • All information on site is from official publications on the weapon design; and reliability has been establish through its use in FACs proir to this one.
    • http://www.factplace.com/index.html
      • Removed all instance of appearence from article and recited all revelent information to more reliable sources.
    • http://www.bismarck-class.dk/
      • Replaced with a book reference.
    • http://www.de220.com/index.html
      • Replaced with a book reference discussing the computer in question.
    • Problems with the prose, there are many instances of comma misuse, grammatical errors, long sentences, and signs of reorganization needed (some short paragraphs).
      • Should have been adressed with copyedit from both Roger Davies and Bellhalla.
    • Needs a copyedit by editor new to text. Please see Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#General_copyediting and Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members for lists of editors you can contact for help.
      • Should have been adressed with copyedit from both Roger Davies and Bellhalla.
    • Some citations with a URL are missing an access date, such as current refs 18, 20, 22 and 26.
      • Handled myself.
    • "Engineering plant" section is short and does not flow with the rest of the article.
      • Merged after 48 hour suggestion with no return comments
    • I am nitpicking, but you repeat many links in the citations. For example, "Naval Vessel Register." is linked again and again in several citations. Only really needs to be linked on the first instance, same goes for other linked publisher names.
      • Beleived to have been adressed by Bellhalla
    • Looks like the Further reading link should be in External links, if it should be linked at all.
      • Handeled myself.
    • Inconsistent use of 'would have' and 'could be'.
      • Adressed
    • Current ref 3 (CV-59 FORRESTAL class) is lacking a publisher, and shouldn't be in all capitals.
      • This one is fixed, also. (Forgot to note when updating last evening.) — Bellhalla (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is Sea Classics a journal? Who publishes them?
    • Is http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/american&military_history/World's%20Fastest%20Battleships.pdf a journal article? or a dissertation?
      • The host site for the article is the Missouri University of Science and Technology, and the paper (to me) reads like a jornal article more that a dissertation (I do believe dissertations are much longer). The author of the paper is a USNR intelligence officer at the University who was MS in enigineering, so either way the paper should meet the criteria for a reliable source.
    • Current ref 28 (USS Wisconsin is numerically the highest...) has two bald URL links in the sourcing. Should be formatted with title, publisher, etc.
    • Current ref 29 is lacking a publisher.
    • Current ref 32 (Underwater photos of the Bismark ...) has just a bare url link in the ref. Needs a title and a publisher and a last access date

    03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

        • Removed as per referencing concerns.
    • Current ref 39 "Ammunition data is taken from ... " should have a page number and other bibliographic information
      • Added proper book citation information. Page numbers still need to be added. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current refs 48 and 49 should probably have sources.
      • Section mereged, suggestion implemented
    • In the Design section you make reference to 18" guns being a part of the Montana class
      • No I don't, I said Yamato class. It is true that the USN considered using 18in gins, but nothing ever came of these plans.
    • In the Design section, 4th paragraph you explain the differences of the Panama canal sizing but repeat the entire paragraph under the Armor section.
      • Handled myself
    • In the Fate section, in the first sentence you use maxed out. (clarification)
      • Reworded for clarity
    • Lead, 2nd para: should that really be "tonnages" or should it instead be "displacement"?
      • Got it.
    • Lead, 3rd para: I rephrased last sentence to show that it applied to the four completed Iowa-class ships. If you feel the "of six" needs to be back in there, please restore.
      • Its good.
    • Design, 1st para: De-linked Yamato gun. If the gun was, in fact, rumored to be that exact, specific type of gun, a link is appropriate; otherwise, leave it for the Yamato article.
      • Gotcha.
    • Fate, 1st para: Tonnage? Again, should it be displacement?
      • Believed to have been adressed, will need to check to be sure.
    • Fate, 2nd para: The "unfortunately" comment is a virtual repeat of a sentence in History, 4th para. Probably best to have it only once.
      • Done and done.
    • Ships: All were authorized on the same date and all canceled on the same date, right? Maybe pull that data and place it at the top instead of repeating it five times
      • Complied after no comments were made tot he contrary.
    • Armor, 2nd para: Repeats info given previously. Just remind the reader of the discussion: "Because the US Navy previously limited battleships to fit the Panama Canal…"
      • Handeled myself.
    • Aircraft, 1st para: Does this need a cite?
      • It shouldn't, the Iowa class page doesn't have one, but if you think it right I can add one I suppose (awaiting further input).
        • It now has a cite.
    • Engineering plant: I'm not all that up on the details of ship mechanical systems, but would it really be "four sets of shafts" or just "four shafts"?
      • Elected to merge this into the article body further up until such time as more info becomes avaliable.
    • Probably should have a source for the data in footnote 12, the names of the 17 planned ships.
      • I will see what I can do.
        • Done
    • The prose is long winded
      • Possibly adressed via the copyedit, further feed back needed
        • Assuming that this has been addressed via copyedit, so striking and moving to the adressed column
    • Remove the spaces before the refs
      • Done
    • en dashes required for certain things
      • Working on it, or possbly addressed? (did maralia get this? she may have...)
        • She must've got it, becuase its a hidden comment now.
    • History, 3rd para: Does the last sentence need a cite? Might be questioned at FAC.
    • doublecheck the use of WP:HYPHEN (suspect missing hyphenation on things like: Oerlikon 20 mm anti-aircraft guns)
    • missing publishers on the citations
    • The citations also need a lot of minor but irritating elbow-grease clean up work.
      • HTML does not need to be included in a citation; it's the default.
      • Some citations have p., others don't (need to be consistent).
      • Some of your page ranges (multiple pages) have pp., others have just p. (need to be consistent).
      • There are punctuation issues, sample: " (pdf).
        • All thought to have been adressed by Epbr123's check of the article

    }}

    • references need to include cited works
      • Clarification needed
    • Determine a way to explain Second Vinson Act, Battleship Design Advisory Board, and Two Ocean Navy if there isn't enough information available to start articles.
      • Working on it. This could take a while though.
    • Both books in your reference list need publication dates

    Comments

    • remove spaces before refs; i.e. "920 ft 6 in (280.6 m) [2]", "121 ft 0 in (36.9 m) [2]", "36 ft 1 in (11.0 m) [2]", per WP:FOOTNOTE
      • I presume by this you mean non-breaking spaces ( )?
        • Never mind, I see what you are driving at: there were spaces in the table between the figures cited and the actual citations. I have fixed these as per your comment, and checked to see that there were no other instances in the article. I did not catch any, but I have been staring at the same material for about seven monthes so I am at this point reading what I wrote instead of whats there, therefore if you spot any other expamples of this problem feel free to bring them to my attention. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • en dashes required for certain things, per WP:DASH; examples: "p. 102-106", "10-40 ×", "3-4 ×", "period (1906-1946) not "
      • Right. I will get on this immediately.

    Gary King (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    }} Gary King (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I have just copyedited the lead and first two sections, but have to run some errands before it gets too hot to be outside; Tom, please do bug me if I forget to finish tonight. Maralia (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, I've finished copyediting. Tom, a couple notes for future reference:

    • The form "x-class" (with the hyphen) is an adjectival construct and should never stand alone; conversely, "x class" without the hyphen is a noun.
    • the Tom class would have been awesome;
    • the Tom-class design was the best ever;
    • the Tom-class battleships were never built.
    • This article was strewn with the words 'United States Navy' and 'US Navy'. I think it was probably the result of writing it piecemeal, but just something to be aware of next time: the context is the US Navy, so you needn't specify it every single time the Navy is mentioned.

    Some remaining issues:

    • "The exact design and placement of the armor, factors inextricably linked with the ship's stability and performance, is a complex science honed over decades." - this needs tweaking: either it's a plural subject (design and placement...factors), or it's a singular subject (design and placement...is).
      • Changed to the latter suggestion.
    • in the rquote, "it's not just the weight of the shell, its the weight of the shell" - The second 'its' should be 'it's'; I didn't change this as I was unclear whether this is your transcription of a verbal comment (in which case we can just fix it) or if the source was written (in which case we should go with it[']s).
      • Changed per your suggestion
    • You have used the R. L. Minks article in Sea Classics as a reference twice, but the second mention has inferior formatting and less information; please make it as good as the first Minks footnote.
      • I assume you are refering to the link for the comment regarding the Essex class carriers, if so, then this has been changed, if not, please give a number so I can change it.}}
    • RE the footnote to "Bureau of Ships' "Spring Styles" Book": did you go see the actual documents? I'm not sure how to format this footnote (I can't tell exactly what the book title is, and I presume it was published by the Bureau of Ships or the Navy itself rather than the NHC as it appears) but double hyphens are definitely not the way to go.
    • Which number are you refering to? I can't seem to find this one, and cannot comment on it unless I can read it.
    • Currently it's footnote 12. Presuming you are referring to the actual documents in their archives, suggest something like:
    Bureau of Ships. "Battleship Preliminary Design Drawings". Spring Styles, 3, 1939–1941. Naval Historical Center archives, lot # S-511.
    • Both books in your reference list need publication dates (at least the year). The ISBN of the first book appears to refer to one by a different publisher than the one you listed. The last book ref says it was published in China, by the Naval Historical Center, which seems...rather unlikely :)
    • "American components, Russian components, all of them made in Tiawan!" --Russian Cosmonaut, Aremageddon :) Beleive me, I too was caught by suprise. Since I can't seem to get these fields filled in correctly, Ill supply the info in its entirety, and you can tell me where to plug it in (or do it yourself, whichever you find to by easier):
    The Navy
    Rear Admiral W. J. Holland, Jr., USN
    Editor-in-Chief
    Barnes & Noble Books New York
    Naval Historical Foundation
    1306 Dahlgren Avanue, S.E.
    Washington Navy Yard, D.C. 20374-5055
    Phone# (omited)
    Fax # (omited)
    email (omited)
    http://www.navyhistory.org
    Copyright 2000 Naval Historical Foundation
    This Edition Published by Barnes and Noble, Inc., by arrangement with Hugh Lauter Levin Associates, Inc.
    2004 Barnes and Noble Books
    M 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
    ISBN 0-7607-6218-X
    Printed in China
    Design: Lori S. Malkin
    Project Editer: James O. Muschett
    http://www.HLLA.com
    • Okay, I've fixed this book (China doesn't matter, by the way - that's the print location, not the publishing location). Now I need more info on the Visual Encyclopedia. For that ISBN, Amazon lists Collins & Brown (September 1, 2000). Is that the right edition? Maralia (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure. The infor for this book is as follows:
        • first produced in 1999 by PRC publishing Ltd, 64 Brewery Road, London N7 9NT, A member of the Chrysalis Group plc. This edition first published in 2001 Reprinted in 2002 Distributed in the US and Canada by: Sterling Publishing Co., Inc. 387 Park Avanue South New York NY 10016 (copyright) 1999 PRC Publishing Ltd. ISBN 1-85585-878-9 Printed and Bound in Taiwan.
    • Please review the external link named 'Thoughts on the battleships of WWII' for appropriateness. It's definitely a self-published site, which is not a dealbreaker for an external link but it should still be subjected to some review for accuracy/relevance. If the link stays, it needs a better title.

    Maralia (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • I am not sure if you were here for it, but back in 2005 there was a rather large gunfight on the article Iowa class battleship over competition, and when the dust settled there was a reluctent acceptance of such a section in that article until its March 2007 rewrite, when it was removed in its entirety and this and the other comparison website were added in its place in part to keep the comparison camp happy. I ported these two sites to this article in an attempt to keep a comparison section out of the article. I agree with your assessment of the site, buts its presence here is intended to preempt any edit war by allowing readers to get an offsite opinion (as in, not supported by the facts) on where the Montana class and the Yamato class stand as opposed to turning our article on either battleship class into a forum for general discussion. This is pushing our external link policy a little, but I feel that in the interest of editting peace it may be nessicary to leave this link in. I am open to everyones opinion on this matter, so if you want more information or links to the edit war on the Iowa page I can provide those. I just thought I would explain here why the links are in the article in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs)
    • I didn't actually read through that site, and I'm really unqualified to judge it; if you feel it's worth keeping, I won't argue. I would, however, like the piped text for the link to be improved – give the reader some indication of what they'll get (and from whom) if they click the link. Maralia (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll cruise through it again just to be safe, if I can't find anything relating to the article I will remove the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment - images all look good from a copyright standpoint. Kelly hi! 18:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course :) All works produced by the USN are PD unless otherwise noted, so there is usually no shortage of free visual info to add to the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Excellent article; very informative reading. Neovu79 (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notes: I see some minor issues before this is ready to promote. Tom, can you please ask someone like Tony1 or Epbr123 to doublecheck the use of WP:HYPHENs? I could be wrong, but I suspect missing hyphenation on things like: Oerlikon 20 mm anti-aircraft guns. Also, there are numerous missing publishers on the citations. The citations also need a lot of minor but irritating elbow-grease clean up work. HTML does not need to be included in a citation; it's the default. Some citations have p., others don't (need to be consistent). Some of your page ranges (multiple pages) have pp., others have just p. (need to be consistent). There are punctuation issues, sample: " (pdf). . IEEE You might ask Epbr123 to read my comments here and run through the entire article, cleaning up citations and checking hyphenation, but you should do a lot of basic citation cleanup first, making citation style consistent and assuring that publishers are listed. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gotcha. I'm the middle of class at the moment (five minute break since its a two hour, ten minute class), so I am not in a position to do much about it right this exact second, but I intend to head to library after class and will see about getting the ball rolling on fixing these issues then. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think everything's been fixed now. The hyphens were fine, as they aren't needed when units are abbreviated. Epbr123 (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Very good article. I find no reason to oppose. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, a lot of work still needed. I found issues in almost every sentence just in the lead, indicating a thorough copy-edit by new person is needed.
      • Prose: "Five were approved for construction during World War II but changes in wartime building priorities resulted in their cancellation in favor of the Essex-class aircraft carriers before any Montana-class keels were laid." What is the phrase "... before any Montana-class keels were laid." really doing? Would the meaning change without it?
        • Yes, it would. Cancelled before the keels were laid implies that the class never made it pass the drawing board, while plain old cancelled could imply that ships of this class were under construction when cancelled (like USS Illinois (BB-65) and USS Kentucky (BB-66). Its important, thats why its there.
      • Ship jargon appears without explanation. "Keel" is probably not a general-knowledge term. I don't know many non-sailors who know the difference between armor and armament.
        • This can be fixed by linking the ship jargon words to there related articles here (assuming they have one, and most do). You supply the odd words, and I will find the links for them.
          • Sorry, but I will not supply a list of words. Please have someone fresh read through and link all important concepts. --Laser brain (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Let me get this straight: I agree to fic the problem and you dicide not to show me what needs fixed? What am I being measured for here? I'm not a pshykick, I can;t read minds, and others obviously didn't think this was important enough to warrent commenting. Its my nomination, therefore its my responibility to fix the problems, not someone elses. If you won;t work wtih me to solve the problem then how can it be adressed? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • FAC is not the place to perform larger-scale fixes and it is not a reviewer's job to make laundry lists of problems. When I review an article, I oppose it if I don't think it's ready and give the nominator a list of example problems. --Laser brain (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then change your oppose to a comment. I have already offered to meet you half way and you have turned that down; if you are not going to work with me on this then changing your opinion is the least you can do. And for the record, the entire article has been a laundry list of things that have needed improvement, and I have endevoured to adress everyone elses concerns, without complaints and in a timely manner to the best of my abilities. I can do the same for you if you will only trust me and supply the words you want to see linked. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The linking needs work. You have "aircraft carrier" linked twice in the lead, but not things that people will actually need to look up like "Second Vinson Act"
        • We don;t have an article on the Second Vinson Act. I've been trying to find material for an article on the act for two years now (off and on, not continiously), but haven't located anything on the act.
          • If there is no article, then you need to write about it in this article so people know what you're talking about. --Laser brain (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Prose: "Following the success of carrier combat in both the Battle of Coral Sea and, to a greater extent, the Battle of Midway ..." The word "both" does nothing here.
        • Here the both is meant to single these two specific engagements out, though I concede a point in your favor that the both may not be needed.
      • Prose: "The Montana class was the last US Navy battleship design, though the last US battleships actually commissioned ..." What's the different between "commissioned" and "actually commissioned"? --Laser brain (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nothing ostensibly, unless you count commission in this sense as meaning both "looking into making a new design" and "placing a ship into service with her nation's navy".
    Lastly, on the issue of copyediting: this article has been copyedited till the cows come home by a number of different people, and at this point I am having a very hard time convincing myself that another copyedit is in order. Personell from MILHIST and SHIPS have copyeditted the article, Ebpr123 has checked the article and not found anything questionable, SandyGeorgia didn't raise the issue of a copyedit when she commented, and Wackymacs (a copyediters) has review and supported the current version, as have the others who were insistant on having the article copyeditted. Exactly why do feel another copyedit is in order? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, my list of sample problems is why I feel a copy-edit is in order. That's why reviewers make the lists. I do empathize, and I see that several editors have come by and make edits, but I don't think the prose meets criterion 1a at all. If I find that many problems just in the lead, I am going to say the article isn't ready to be featured. This, of course, is just my opinion, and the article may be featured regardless. --Laser brain (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tired of reading requests for copyediting, including my own, I had another go at it. Dhatfield (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My logic says that basic terminology should be covered in the battleship article and by the time someone is reading about ships that were never constructed, they'd be quite clued up, but I suppose each article must stand on its own. I'm too tired to find all appropriate links (refs are a killer for copyeditors - ironically, so are links), but here's a list: armor, firepower, gun, anti-aircraft capability, heavily-armed (specifically armed), Panama Canal, ammunition, main (primary) guns and secondary armament / guns, caliber, breech, recoil, air resistance, rangekeeper, radar, fire control, hardened steel, reinforced concrete, shore bombardment, impact, detonation, defoliate, nuclear deterrence, Cold War, nuclear bombs & shells, kilotons, turret, island of the battleship, starboard, port, fleet, gas blow-back recoil system, automatic guns, logistics, hydraulic couple drives (or just hydraulic), gunnery spotting, catapult, taxi, crane, operating ceiling, fall of shot, radio, floatplanes, ditch, landing gear, floats, search and rescue. I know many of these (or similar) are available, I used them in Tank. Dhatfield (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My policy is to re-use links further down in new sections for particularly unfamiliar or important concepts (battleship would be a favourite also recoil is mentioned in many separate places), but that's up to you. If necessary link different phrases to the same article - it's a way to tell the reader they're the same thing (specifically main / primary / secondary guns / armament). Dhatfield (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well done for your tireless efforts and persistence in improving this article. Dhatfield (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:37, 13 June 2008 [69].

    Anna May Wong[edit]

    Nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because a group of editors, of which I am part, have successfully put this article through GA review and two Peer Reviews. We feel it is now ready for FA review. Dekkappai (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources queries resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments -

    Still on the road, didn't check external links. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have the non-reliable sources all been resolved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The questioned sources were all resolved. Several of us new at FA review, SandyGeorgia. These were marked through cross-outs, but were told that this was improper, as are graphic ticks. I noted below in a reply that these have been removed. If this also is not sufficient, I'm really at a loss as to how to mark points addressed... Dekkappai (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, sorry for the confusion :-) Items are considered resolved when the reviewer strikes them; the procedure would be to ask Ealdgyth if she's satisfied with the sources. (Otherwise, I can check myself.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (per this edit Ealdgyth struck objection to all the sources and noted in the edit summary that all was resolved. The strikes were subsequently reverted. I'll restrike them. Rossrs (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    No problem, SandyGeorgia-- hope I wasn't too gruff up there. This is a first time FA for me, so it's all new... (I now know to close a Peer Review... :-) Dekkappai (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. When I strike, I quit watchlisting the FAC, so I didn't even know someone had removed my strikes. They were resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be clearer to specify which Chinese language(s) are referred to. Snowman (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • See "Transliterations" (below infobox) --Red Sunset 21:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that transliterations is her name in different languages, but I was not referring to that. From the introduction, I presume that her ethnicity is one of the key features of the article. What the page needs is what language her parent spoke, what language she was taught at her Chinese lessons in US, and also a bit more about genealogy, and her precise Chinese ethnicity. Snowman (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, there was a whole paragraph on her genealogy-- her father's family's immgration to the U.S., their hometown, and the fact that they spoke Taishanese. That was first shortened, and then commented out, and finally, I edited it out, because other editors felt it was a bit too much detail at an already long article. We could restore it, I suppose, but it would seem to be going in circles to me... Since I wrote the original section, and it was removed by editing consensus, I'll leave it alone and let other editors decide on whether it should be restored. Dekkappai (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw a short commented out section on her grandparents at one time. I think that it was a mistake to remove all of the longer version. I think that there are unanswered questions without more precise details of languages and ethnicity. Snowman (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Couldn't you have made this comment when the discussion was going on? You were actively editing the article at this time... I believe it was Red Sunset and EraserGirl who thought the section should be cut down, and finally removed. I'd have been on your side then, but it seems like consensus-- at that time anyway-- was to cut it down, and finally, to remove it. I'll be happy to restore it, but I think we need input from the others first. Dekkappai (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw a line or two on grandparents in hidden text and then your comment to delete it. My comment here is an observation with no hidden motives. I did request clarification of her language in an edit summary on 30 April 2008. The discussion you refer to is at Talk:Anna_May_Wong/Archive_1#Ethnicity and there was agreement with you and I see no conclusion to delete anything there. Nevertheless, I think my comment here is valid. Snowman (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not implying any hidden motives. It just confuses me as to why, after several weeks' editing, a GA review and two Peer Reviews, this old issue is being brought up by one of the editors of the article... Sure, I'm in favor of restoring it-- I'm the one who wrote it, after all. Any other opinions? Dekkappai (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look on the bright side; perhaps you were right all along, and Red thought you were right too. I have not taken part in any discussions to take it through peer reviews or GA, or to initiate FAC. Anyway, lets wait for Red and others to have a say. To me, it is a barn door that ethno-linguistics should go in. Snowman (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (Return) Sorry to keep you both waiting! My original thoughts on the section regarding Wong's ancestry were that it was a tad hard going, and wondered if there was perhaps a bit too much related information as this bears out. I accepted Dekk's response and no further action was taken until later when similar comments were made, if I remember correctly, during a peer review; but a trawl through review and discussion histories would reveal the exact details of what was said and by whom. So, in essence, I'm not opposed to most of the info being replaced without it going too far off-topic, or to the addition of references to spoken language. --Red Sunset 19:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OK-- I guess that makes three of us who say restore it, so I've put back the shorter version. It doesn't specifically say the family spoke Taishanese, but points out the hometown was near Taishan, and the Chinese template includes Taishanese. I hope this satisfies your concern, Snowman. If not, let us know. Dekkappai (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion the article needs the dialect too. In other articles it might not matter so much, but here I think it is essential. Why are there two languages in the template? - excuse my ignorance. Snowman (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Standard Mandarin is the official language, and was during Wong's lifetime as well-- since 1924 according to the article. The second, Taishanese, is there because it's the dialect she spoke. I'll see if I can work in a reference to that in the text. Dekkappai (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The "new" material looks fine, and noting that the family lived near Taishan implies that logically they would speak Taishanese; but apart from (admittedly) adding accuracy and interest, why is the dialect so important? --Red Sunset 22:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that what you imply is a logical deduction is actually almost totally dependant on special knowledge. They do not all speak Londonese in London, or Scotlandese in Scotland. The dialect is important because her ethnicity is notable, and it would be interesting to known what dialect her Chinese lessons were in. Snowman (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest adding in the paragraph on her trip to China, after the sentence, "During her travels in China, she continued to be strongly criticized..." we might add something like: "She had difficulty communicating in most areas of China because she was raised with the Taishan dialect rather than Standard Mandarin." I remember reading this in several sources-- the Hodges for one, I'm pretty sure. I don't have any of them with me, so unless anyone else can source this, it'll have to wait till Monday. Dekkappai (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have thought that it could also be said in a more prominent position as well as popping up in a sentence about something else; nevertheless, the sentence you suggest sounds like another good addition (pending sourcing on Monday). You have just added more confusion. Being 2nd generation U.S. I would have guessed that she would have been raised in English. Was she raised to be bilingual? What dialect were her Chinese lessons in? Did she have Chinese lessons to learn the standard dialect? How different are the two languages? If we had the facts we would not need to make guesses or deductions. Please excuse my lack of knowledge on Chinese languages. Snowman (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Snowman has made some good points; however, the fact that Wong attended schools where lessons were taught in English at one and Chinese at the other suggests that she was or at least became bilingual. Just a suggestion, but IMO the reference to the family speaking with the Taishan dialect and the other language-related points could be introduced into the third paragraph of the "Early life" section where the Chinese language school is first mentioned. --Red Sunset 14:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Snowman's confusion is really beginning to confuse me... Yes, she spoke English. She was born and raised in the U.S. By-and-large, we speak English here. She also spoke Chinese at home-- Taishanese dialect, to be precise-- because that is the language that her grandparents spoke, since they came from China, a Taishanese-speaking area of China. I have not seen the specific dialect of the Chinese lessons mentioned, but since Taishanese is Cantonese, as were the majority of Chinese immigrants to the U.S. at the time, and because she could not speak Mandarin at the time of her trip to China in 1936, I assume that they were in Taishanese. I suppose we could assert that the lessons were in Taishanese, but not only would this be original research, I don't really see how crucial that information is... I really don't see what the confusion is-- Chinese-American, English-speaker, spoke Chinese (Taishanese) at home, went to U.S. (English) schools, father sent her to Chinese-school (Taishanese, probably) after school. This is all very standard immigrant activity, in my experience. My own son, a second-generation Korean-American on his mother's side-- speaks English at school, speaks English and Korean at home, and we send him to Korean school so he can speak to our Korean friends, his relatives in Korea, and have that language as a useful skill in the future. Why is this difficult to understand? And why is this being brought up now, after weeks of editing... I'm getting very confused. Dekkappai (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I think it's time to knock this one on the head. Without proper sources, some of Snowman's comments cannot be addressed and the details will have to remain unstated in the article. Dekkappai has already said that he will find out what he can on Monday, so I suggest we leave it to his discretion to decide what can realistically be added. --Red Sunset 20:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A few remaining points need to be clarified, and so these problems are being brought up in FAC discussion. Snowman (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no points you've brought up that need to be addressed here, Snowman. Let's look: 1) "Was she raised to be bilingual?" The answer is obvious, and addressed in the article. 2) "What dialect were her Chinese lessons in?" In researching this article, I've read many biographies the length of our article and longer, including two full-length, 300+ page works. None of them specifically say what dialect the lessons were in. It seems that the experts have decided that this is not important. For us to say it is important would be Original Research. 3) "Did she have Chinese lessons to learn the standard dialect?" Ditto. I would point out, however, that her learning of German is widely-remarked on, and covered in the two biographies. Still, this is a point beyond the scope of our article. 4) "How different are the two languages?" This is a question for articles on the Chinese language(s), not in an encyclopedia article on Anna May Wong. Really, I think I addressed your question when I restored the old material. I'll go an extra step in adding the sentence on Taishanese/Mandarin when I can source it specifically (I hope) tomorrow. Beyond that, I really don't think the questions being brought up are within the scope of an encyclopedia article on Anna May Wong. Most of these points are not brought up even in full-length biographies, and others are more properly addressed in articles on Chinese. Dekkappai (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I really do not think that it is obvious in the article that she was brought up to be bilingual. I have known settlers in the UK opt not to teach their children any other language except English, because they would not need any other language. If some issues are unclear because some facts are unknown, that is not a problem; nevertheless, the point of FAC is to discuss the merits of the article. I think that all of the topics I have raised have been relevant. The factual content added from your literature research has been excellent. Snowman (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we close this now? The points Snowman has raised have been discussed and answered by Dekkappai to the best of his knowledge, and in the absence of suitable sources we should leave it to Dekkappai to add that which is verifiable. --Red Sunset 23:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I second the motion. I appreciate Snowman's concern that the article sufficiently cover Wong's ancestry and linguistic background, but I think it does now. It's quite obvious at the article that she was raised bilingual... She went to U.S. public school, then to a Chinese school taught in English, and she went to Chinese language school. This is all stated in the article. Unless an article is required to answer every conceivable question directly (Potential question #6,962 "Was Anna May Wong raised bilingual?" Answer: "Yes, Anna May Wong was raised bilingual."...) Similarly the Taishanese question is answered quite sufficiently at the article. We've got links to the article on Taishan which, surely, tells what language is spoken there. And we've got links to China, Chinese, Standard Mandarin, etc. all of which will cover off-topic issues, but important, like how do Mandarin and Cantonese differ. They are covered at the articles at which they should be covered, not the Anna May Wong article. Dekkappai (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The question "How do Mandarin and Cantonese differ?" is not off-topic as it relates to how easy she would have been able to learn or understand one language knowing the other. I do not know why this has been side-stepped. I think that all of the topics I have raised have been relevant. I think that her ancestry is now covered adequately. However, going to Chinese school might imply that she was learning Chinese at a basic level speaking mainly English prior to that. People who learn languages before the age of about 10 years of age can speak the languages authentically, and I think the article still leaves it in some doubt about this. Snowman (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've added these two sentences to the "China" section: 'She also had difficulty communicating in many areas of China because she was raised with the Taishan dialect rather than Standard Mandarin. She later commented that some of the Chinese dialects sounded "as strange to me as Gaelic. I thus had the strange experience of talking to my own people through an interpreter."' To anticipate the next line of questioning: No, I don't think the article needs a discussion of the differences between Gaelic and English, California English specifically. Yes, a discussion of the difference between Mandarin and Cantonese would be very important, very encyclopedic-- at an article on Chinese dialects, not in an article on a Chinese-American actress. The same would go for German and English, or French and English, or American- and British-English, all of which Wong studied in her life. She also sang in many other langues-- Swedish for one... These are all very good subjects for encyclopedia articles, but not for a brief article on Anna May Wong. Anna May Wong led a full and fascinating life, three full-scale books have recently been published on her life and work, and I am sure they have still not completely covered the subject. But the issues you bring up are not even covered in these large works (the two that I have access to anyway-- and I doubt a filmography goes into Chinese linguistics). Both of these large books are written by authors with concerns about ethnicity. Hodges' main field is African-American culture and history, and Chan states that his book is written "from a uniquely Asian American perspective and sensibility." Still neither of these books discuss, for example, the dialect of Wong's childhood Chinese lessons. So, unless we are planning to write an article even lengthier and more in-depth than these several-hundred pages, we have to leave things out. Leaving out a discussion of linguistics is actually one of the easier choice. She makes some interesting-- if understandably biased-- comments about Japan, which I personally find interesting. She makes many comments about European countries and compares them to the U.S. Also very interesting stuff... In his index, Hodges has 20 pages devoted to Wong's choice of clothing, 9 to conflicts with father, 5 to drinking, 2 on a case of extortion against Wong, 18 on her hair... I hope you get the point, but whether you do or not, I'll have to consider the issue settled now. Dekkappai (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the changes have made a difference. Snowman (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whew! Thanks, Snowman! Dekkappai (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please close and archive the peer review. The instructions at both WP:PR and WP:FAC state that articles shouldn't be at both places simultaneously, and peer reviews should be closed before approaching FAC. Also, if it's not archived, it will stall the bot when the FAC closes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • "First Asian-American movie star" is incredible POV without a reliable source, and this, as Ealdgyth pointed out above, is definitely not a reliable source.
    • Footnotes should go after punctuation.
      • All footnotes are directly after punctuation excepting where there are quotation marks between the footnote and punctuation, and are in ascending order in the case of multiple references. --Red Sunset 19:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll check for grammar and prose later. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Is "First U.S. President" incredible POV too? Easy enough to source... Unless it's being implied above that a major print biography is not reliable either... And that is easily found through Wikipedia's ISBN / World Cat search right here... So this is FA review... Will try to address some of these points tomorrow. Dekkappai (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK-- removed that definitely unreliable source-- written by Philip Leibfried, published authority on Anna May Wong, and all the other contentious ones have been removed except for the one sourcing the translation of her name. That will be easy to replace tomorrow. I'll see if I can figure out how to close the Peer Review. Dekkappai (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And here is a link to Scarecrow Press, "... purchased in 1995 by University Press of America... known for our scholarly bibliographies, historical dictionaries (of countries, religions, organizations, wars, movements, cities, and, now, ancient civilizations), library science monographs, and reference works in the humanities, particularly music and film..." Dekkappai (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK-- I think I've removed all the criticized links & replaced with university sources, except the one to the documentary. That's not a source, but an external link, to a documentary, which I think is appropriate. If not, feel free to slash & burn. Dekkappai (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - I think this is an excellent article, very strong, interesting and well written, logically structured and with appropriate emphasis placed on the various elements that make up her story. Sourcing seems to be very thorough and precise, and the legacy section is exceptional. I think it meets FA standard and I'd be happy to see this nomination succeed. Some points: (the following points have all been addressed) — Rossrs 14:39, May 13, 2008 — continues after insertion below

    • The overall article flows very well, and is engagingly written. By contrast the lead section is a little stilted. Rather than expect anyone to read my mind, I'll try to reword a couple of sections that I think should be reworded. Of course, anyone is welcome to revert....
      • I've gone through and joined a few sentences, removed a few "Wong"s. I thought it was a bit dismissive to refer to Luise Rainer just as "a European woman" as it discounts the fact that Rainer was once highly prized as a film actress...and she was hired because she was "Luise Rainer" not merely because she was European. In any case, I think it has been softened a little just by adding her name. Would be interested to hear what you think. Rossrs (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure who phrased it as just "A European woman", but it is a bit odd since she was, indeed a major star. I never saw it as "dismissive" exactly, but do think your version is better. Dekkappai (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the lead - "ensuring her unique place in film history" is drawing a conclusion. It's enough to say that she's been the subject of renewed interest and specific works. It's discussed very well in the legacy section, and Anthony Chan's comment is quite useful, but we can't say these works will "ensure" anything, particularly in the lead where it's an opinion not attributed to anyone.
    • Infobox - the generic occupation "performer" seems superfluous when preceded by her specific fields (acting, singing etc). "Fashion icon" is not an occupation. I suggest both should be removed.
    • The Grauman's paragraph. That Wong was hugely disadvantaged by racism throughout her life is very well documented and supported throughout the article, (obviously it's one of the main themes discussed) but this paragraph is somewhat weak by comparison. Rather than suggest or imply racism, we should come right out and say it, but only if it is clearly established. It could be supported by a comment from a biographer or film historian or even by Wong's own perception, any of which could be added to strengthen the point. As it is, it reads as though Wikipedia has concluded that she was excluded due to racism, without actually supporting the notion. It just needs to be reworded to make the point more exact.
      • The racist implication is in one of the sources-- the online one, I think-- but not directly stated. I've tried to remove that implication at the article. Dekkappai (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's fine....Is it mentioned in any of the biographies? I don't understand why the paragraph goes on to discuss typecasting and stereotyping. Is there a reason for this? I think that would be better in the next paragraph because it immediately goes on to mention the "yellowface" issue, but let me know if I'm missing something. Rossrs (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I moved it into the next paragraph because it looked pretty skimpy on its own. I've joined it into another one that makes more sense. Dekkappai (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "tired of the typecasting and losing roles that should have been hers" - it's not really for us to say that they should have been hers, even if it appears obvious. Perhaps rewording to something like "losing roles that she sought" or something similar.
      • Reworded. --Red Sunset 19:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I like the way it's worded now. It's strong and specific. Rossrs (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Picadilly is "today considered her finest movie". Can this be expanded slightly to give some kind of modern verdict so that "today" fits? The comments are only related to its reception in 1929. (A modern viewpoint has been given for Shanghai Express, and something similar is needed for Picadilly, although in the legacy section it says that only Shanghai Express received attention in more recent times, so I don't know. This contradicts the statement that Picadilly "today" is considered "her finest". )
      • This one is giving me a little trouble-- As an explanation: Shanghai Express was remembered, because of Dietrich & von Sternberg. Picadilly was largely forgotten until its recent (within the decade) restoration by UCLA, and today several critics-- Corliss in Time, and Hodges in his biography-- call it her best performance and best film. I think I read it, all spelled out like this, at one of the sources, possibly one that has now been removed. I've been able to put each element together-- the UCLA restoration, and the modern critics saying it's her best-- but haven't yet found a source that lays it all out as in our article. I'll try to either solve it or change it today though. Dekkappai (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I tried to take care of this by rewriting and citing two sources already at the article. One that tells the British Film Institute (not UCLA) restored the film, and another that says this restoration is largely responsible for the re-evaluation, for the positive, of her career. Hope this addresses the point. Dekkappai (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes it addresses the point. Discussing the restoration places the comments into the correct context. I think it's excellent. Rossrs (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Java Head - "Perhaps because of this, the film remained one of Wong's personal favorites." It seems inappropriate that we should be speculating on why the film was a favourite. If the "perhaps" belongs to Hodges then it should be attributed accordingly, otherwise it should be avoided. Rossrs (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, Hodges speculated this. I've put that into the article. Dekkappai (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Note that the wiki guideline is not to strike through others comments; see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments. Strike marks removed. Snowman (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only comments I struck were my own, which the guideline says is OK and which has always been accepted practice on FA nomination pages. The top of the nominations page says not to use graphics such as ticks per your edit summary. Rossrs (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thankyou for pointing out that ticks are not used here. I have put back the strikeouts where you had mentioned it in an edit summary. Snowman (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support , assuming the following minor issues can be addressed You got them, fast work. --GRuban (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lead seems to have a lead of its own! By that, I mean that the lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. Except here, the first paragraph of the lead seems to be a summary of the next three paragraphs of the lead. For the most visible example, in the first paragraph: "In the early 1950s, she starred in her own television series." and in the third paragraph: "Wong returned to the public eye in the 1950s in several television appearances as well as her own series in 1951, The Gallery of Madame Liu-Tsong." Redundant. Can the lead be reshaped so it summarizes the rest of the article, and doesn't summarize itself?
        • I rearranged the intro in chronological order-- I hope this fixes the issue. Dekkappai (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • While we're at it, link that TV series name to the article about it. And can you write a few words about the series? It seems to have been named after her - was it? How long did it run? Why was it canceled? What was it about - a detective series named after a Gallery, how did that work?
        • Linked to the show in the intro. Later, the article now says, "From August 27, 1951 to November 21, 1951, Wong starred in a detective series, The Gallery of Madame Liu-Tsong for the DuMont Television Network., playing the title role, which used her birth name, and was written specifically for her." This last part was in the article earlier but removed-- I don't know when, or for what reason. As far as why it was canceled, and plot points-- I think that's a bit more detail than need be gone into here, though it should certainly be brought up in the article on the TV series. Anyway, I hope this addressed the issue. If not, it won't be very difficult to supply that extra information. Dekkappai (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • stereotypical "Dragon Lady" and demure "Butterfly" roles - surely we have articles that go into more detail about these concepts that we can link to?
        • Dragon Lady is linked to Dragon Lady (stereotype). I found no article specifically on the "Butterfly" stereotype, though China Doll comes close. Our source calls it "Butterfly" though-- from the story Puccini's opera was based on, and which was remade countless times in the silent era. Dekkappai (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd have though we had something better, but I guess the word "demure" covers it, until we get a real article. --GRuban (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Similarly "American anti-miscegenation laws" - an article that explains them more?
      • Wong told Motion Picture in 1931 - Motion Picture is/was a magazine, a radio program, a newspaper? Can we say so, in at least one word? Do we have an article for it that we can link to?
        • THIS SOURCE calls it Motion Picture Magazine, so I've changed it to that. Apparently we have no article started on it. Dekkappai (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • China section is rather broadly named: Tour of China? Return to China?
        • Changed to "Tour of China" --Red Sunset 19:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • After she left for a short trip to The Philippines, - lower case the
      • Later year section could be reorganized a bit - it seems to start in 1938, while the previous section is titled Late 1930s, is 1938 not of the late 1930s? In fact that previous section had something from 1939... how are these events divided by section? I'd think the "six-year absence from film" would be a more natural dividing line, the earlier section on her films, the later section on her real estate, television, and occasional return to film. The Death section is also short, two paragraphs, with the first seeming rather forced in; surely she wasn't thinking about her death at the time of appearing in the film. Merge in to the later year section?
        • Moved "1938" paragraph to "Late 1930s" section, removed heading & merged two "Death" paragraphs into "Later years". Dekkappai (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • instead engaging in pro-China events and appearances. - explain "pro-China" a bit; charity? United China Relief specifically? Political, in support of the Nationalists, that disliked her so much? Communist, perhaps?
      • Link Disputed Passage - if it starred Dorothy Lamour, it may be a major enough movie that we should have an article about it: either stub it out, don't be afraid of a few red links, they encourage people to make articles. Probably the same for The Red Lantern, Bombs over Burma (1942), The Lady from Chungking, Bits of Life, Drifting, A Circle of Chalk, etc. We should generally have articles for major films.
      • notable films such as Schmutziges Geld (aka Song and Show Life, 1928), and Großstadtschmetterling (City Butterfly) - if they're that notable that our text says they're notable, we should certainly have articles! :-)
      • sole other well-known Asian actor of the era, Sessue Hayakawa - guess... :-)
        • I'm not sure what this point is-- The sentence reads, "In this film she starred for the only time alongside the sole other well-known Asian actor of the era, Sessue Hayakawa." Dekkappai (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry - I meant, if he's a well-known actor, should we have an article on him that this should link to? That's sort of become my refrain for this review. :-) It's a bit of judgment as to which names are probably worthy of a separate article of their own, we don't want an article on every proper noun, but adjectives like "well-known" imply, to me, that this one is probably article-notable. --GRuban (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah. He's linked above, but in another section. I guess another link won't hurt. Dekkappai (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Asian American Arts Awards, Asian Fashion Designers - important enough for articles & links?

    --GRuban (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I haven't looked over the whole article yet, but could the corresponding Chinese characters be added for her name, Wong Liu Tsong? Also, I have doubts about the translation of her name, "frosted yellow willows." Wong (or Huang, which means yellow in Chinese) is her surname, not part of her given name. bibliomaniac15 01:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Chinese characters are in the infobox. I too wonder about the accuracy of the translation, but it's repeated at nearly every source listed at the page. We had a native (I believe) Chinese-speaking editor here for a while, and I specifically asked him to check out the Chinese name box. He didn't call it wrong. But even for us to replace a "correct" translation for the universally-sourced one would probably constitute original research. Dekkappai (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose—Prose massage required, preferably by someone new to the article. It's not too bad, but improvements are needed.

    • "Chinese-American" needs the hyphen. Pipe the link, please. So does "Asian-American".
    • Such strange words as "film, television, stage, and radio"—why on earth are they blue-splotched?
    • "second generation" as adjective needs hyphen.
    • "passed her over"—"passed over her"? Unsure.
    • "notable" twice in the lead.
    • "Her film career slowed down"—like a bus.
    • Why the sudden bold of the other name in "Early life"? Please debold. Why the caps in "Frosted ..."?
    • "Irish, German and Japanese residents"—who is going to hit those links? Why the repeat link for "Chinese-American"? Audit the whole article for blue splotch.
    • "helped Wong to assimilate further into American culture." You haven't told us yet that she was assimilating. Why "further"? TONY (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've (hopefully) addressed the above points, but another pair of eyes might be useful as TONY suggests. --Red Sunset 19:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Personal notes:[reply]
        • If "Chinese-American" and "Asian-American" are the correct (hyphenated) form, perhaps the editors of the Chinese American, Asian American, European American, Korean American, Filipino American, Indian American, Vietnamese American, Japanese American and many other, similar articles, should be advised that they are in error. However, I would feel comfortable with "Wong had Chinese-American parents" (conjoined to describe parents), or "Wong's parents were Chinese Americans" (Chinese describes Americans): a different form for a different situation; after all, we don't see a "green-door" or a "fast-train". I don't want to jeopardise the review and will leave the term in the hyphenated form, but I'm not convinced that it is correct in every situation, and would welcome further comments.
        • "Frosted Yellow Willows" is capitalised in two print- and numerous online sources. --Red Sunset 20:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • What was wrong with "American of Chinese origin"? Snowman (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nothing wrong, but "Chinese-American" is simpler and therefore IMHO preferable where there are multiple instances of the term. Apart from the hyphenation, it's also consistent with the form most-frequently used in other articles. --Red Sunset 17:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • In order to explain what it means the "Chinese American" wiki page starts; Chinese Americans are Americans of Chinese descent. The term "Americans of Chinese descent" is used and it is simple. Snowman (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Once only, and just to explain the term; thereafter referred to as "Chinese Americans" (no hyphen). --Red Sunset 18:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, and the Llama page starts, "a South American camelid, widely used as a pack animal by the Incas[1] and other natives of the Andes mountains," which is entirely accurate, but we still call them "llama" for simplicity, and because it's the term agreed upon. Dekkappai (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • In Tibet a Lama is a monk. Is there scope for confusion with American-Chinese and Chinese-American? Snowman (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A bot has tagged the image Image:Daughter of shanghai.jpg with doubts of its use on one or both of the pages the image is linked to. Snowman (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure, but I think it might be due to not being linked to Anna May Wong filmography as well as Anna May Wong in the rationale template. I've left a note on the uploader's page. --Red Sunset 22:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think this is a bot-problem. I have a whole section on Daydream (1964 film) at the Tetsuji Takechi article-- clearly justifying the image-- but it was tagged too. I've removed the tag. Probably should be done here too. Dekkappai (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did it; the filmography rationale is similar, and clearly no less strong. --GRuban (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: This is really wonderful article. Great care has been taken on sourcing and (now improved) prose. Only a few reservations keep me from throwing in a full support:

    The article still has six redlinks. If these links aren't likely to be removed any time soon, you should remove them. Else, blueify them.
    Ms. Wong's starring role in the DuMont Television Network series The Gallery of Madame Liu-Tsong is relegated to a single sentence:
    From 27 August to 21 November 1951, Wong starred in a detective series that was written specifically for her; DuMont Television Network's The Gallery of Madame Liu-Tsong,[114] playing the title role which used her birth name.[107]
    I discovered this article through my work on the DuMont network article; I'm well aware that DuMont programs are quite obscure these days (nobody nowadays has heard of or remembers them, actually), but surely more could be said about one of the first American TV series to star an Asian minority? Someone somewhere must have said something else about the program...? Much emphasis, including entire sections, is given to her film roles, while her television roles are relegated to the second half of a single paragraph. It seems unbalanced, to me. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK-- you're not the first to ask for more on the TV series, so I've expanded it to read, "From August 27 to November 21, 1951, Wong starred in a detective series that was written specifically for her; DuMont Television Network's The Gallery of Madame Liu-Tsong,[114] playing the title role which used her birth name.[107] Wong's character was a dealer in Chinese art whose career involved her in detective work and international intrigue.[115] The 11 ten half-hour episodes of the series aired during prime-time, from 9:00 to 9:30 p.m.[116] Though there were plans for a second season of the series, Dumont canceled the show in 1952. No copies of the show or its scripts are known to exist." I blue-linked Chinese art in the section. I hope this causes no one undue concern. About the red-links, and linking in general: Really, we're getting into a ping-pong match here. I'm not addressing this to you specifically, Firsfron, but some say there are too few links, others seem to have an agenda against any linking at all. Can we put aside personal editing preferences and judge the article on its merits? Dekkappai (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Dekkappai,
    Thanks so much for adding a bit on the television series. I know it's difficult finding something to say about a series that McNeil (1996) claims was "little-noted" when it aired, and which is impossible to review today because it was destroyed. So I greatly appreciate what you've done to try to expand the TV section. It works for me.
    As far as the redlinks go: I have worked on 16 FACs (15 of them successful), and I have never heard that leaving redlinks was OK, and we were always strongly urged to fill these in. I have never had anyone tell us to leave redlinks in. Obviously, you can't be forced to jump through opposing hoops, and so I'm withdrawing the redlinks objection, because while I've been trained to think it's weird to leave them in, I see above that you clearly have been told to leave them in, and one of the things I've always disliked about FAC was being pulled in two different directions. I won't subject you to that.
    Support. You've done a wonderful job on this article, you've addressed most of the concerns above, and I feel I can Support. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Dekkappai re the linking issue. I fully understand that over-linking is to be avoided, but what should be linked is IMHO a personal preference and not always clear, and I think it is better to assume that the reader will be interested in, or unfamiliar with more items than I am. Also, I agree with Firsfron of Ronchester regarding redlinks; my thoughts were that they should be avoided at FA-level at least. It's all a bit confusing, but thank-you Firsfron for understanding the position. --Red Sunset 18:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Firsfron. I agree, and it seems to be consensus, that red-linking should be kept at a minimum when an article is up for FA. (Though I think red-links are valuable in articles/subjects still in beginning stages.) Since only one reviewer encouraged red-linking here, I think we should either de-link them or blue-link them, preferably the latter. I'll see if I can start up some stubs on the films by the end of today, and if not, I'll remove the links. I am not so in agreement with the complaints about blue-linking, however. It seems to me that the ability to link-- and for the reader to jump-- from one subject to another is one of Wikipedia's greatest strengths. I think removing blue-linking when it is not overdone-- and I don't think it was here-- is harmful to an article. But, of course, I'll go along with consensus on this. Dekkappai (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with keeping red links to a minimum and making stubs for them if possible, but if there are a few red links remaining it should not prevent potential FA status it itself, so why remove them? Snowman (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way-- I found The Gallery of Madame Liu Tsong listled in the index to Variety for August 1951, but I could not locate the actual article or mention of it... Very frustrating. But, apparently there is a contemporary review or mention of it. I did add a bit to the article on the series also. Dekkappai (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I took time out from discussing the appropriateness of red-links to blue-link them. :-) Bits of Life‎, The Red Lantern‎, Lady from Chungking‎ and Bombs over Burma‎ now have articles started. The only ones I see off-hand are the play A Circle of Chalk and the Dorothy Lamour film Disputed Passage. I'm out of editing time today, but anyone else is free to either blue- or dis-link them. Dekkappai (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice work, Dekkappai. I've blueified one myself. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I'm the evil red-link requester :-), I'll work on the other. --GRuban (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Another observation: Pearson Education states that The Gallery of Madame Liu Tsong was the first television series starring an Asian-American. Should this be noted in the paragraph? Firsfron of Ronchester 15:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Firsfron! That was above and beyond the call of duty for a review. The "first TV series starring an Asian-American" thing was in the article earlier. Someone removed it sometime, for reasons unknown-- it may have even been myself, for reasons of shortening the article. I'll try to put it back in later today. Dekkappai (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I question Pearson Education's assertion that Haing Ngor was the first Asian American to win an Academy Award. Miyoshi Umeki won one in the '50s. I don't know if she was a citizen at the time (or whether Ngor was, for that matter...), though she was a naturalized citizen... Dekkappai (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's definitely wrong, because cinematographer James Wong Howe won an Academy Award in 1956. I'll source Wong's "First" elsewhere. ;-)... Dekkappai (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK-- I've added "the first U.S. television show starring an Asian-American." after the first mention of the series in the intro, and sourced it with a UCLA article. Dekkappai (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The comments I made have been dealt with to my satisfaction --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. A nice article. I have just a few comments though:

    • "Her cremated remains were interred in her mother's gravesite ..." reads strangely to me. Gravesite is where the grave is, not the grave itself.
      • Changed to "Her cremated remains were interred in her mother's grave at Rosedale Cemetery..." Dekkappai (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Wong remained a symbol in literature, as well as in film." Remained until when? Is she still considered a symbol? Should this be "remains"?
      • Changed to "For decades following her death, Wong's image remained as a symbol..." Dekkappai (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Tragedy struck the Wong family in November 1930 when Anna May's mother was hit and killed by an automobile while crossing the street in front of the house." Which house? The family house?
      • Changed to "Tragedy struck the Wong family in November 1930 when Anna May's mother was hit and killed by an automobile while crossing the street in front of the Figueroa Street house. The family remained at this residence until 1934..." Dekkappai (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "During her return to Hollywood in 1930, Wong constantly turned to the stage and cabaret for a creative outlet." Should this be something like "Following her return to Hollywood ... repeatedly turned to the stage ..."?
    • "Wong's rumored relationship with Dietrich in particular caused her family embarrassment over her acting career." This seems, on the face of it, to be a non-sequitor.
      • This one is tricky... The family was always embarassed by her film career, not considered a "respectable" profession at the time. The rumors of lesbianism-- the Dietrich relationship in particular, I guess because it was the most widely-rumored-- added to this... I'll think it over and see if there's a better way to put this. Dekkappai (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Her film Java Head (1934), though generally considered a minor effort, is noteworthy because it is the only film in which Wong kissed the lead male character, her white husband." This confused me for a while, and I was wondering why there was no mention of Won's marriage. Perhaps it could be made clearer that this refers to Wong's white husband in the film, not her real husband? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed to "Her film Java Head (1934), though generally considered a minor effort, is noteworthy as the only film in which Wong kissed the lead male character, her white husband in the film." Dekkappai (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. An interesting, informative, well-structured, well-referenced and well-written article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks, Malleus! I asked Malleus Fatuarum to look over the article, with his "fresh" eyes, and strong experience at FA review. I hope this will have a positive influence on the "Oppose" above which requested prose-massaging? Dekkappai (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Per Tony, I feel the prose is still rather clunky. Some very quick examples: "With the birthname Wong Liu Tsong, meaning "frosted yellow willows", Anna May Wong..."; "Anna May was born next in 1905, followed by five more children"; "lesser-regarded films"; "losing significant Chinese character roles". There are plenty more. But on the whole, this isn't half-bad. With a bit more copy-editing, I could be persuaded to support. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The particular examples of problematic prose I mentioned earlier have all been changed. I'll try to come back to this article tomorrow. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The prose is still rather uninspiring. On another note, the section title "Stardom" seems inappropriate, given that it describes a period in which she (still) is unable to get any decent parts. I don't have a great alternative, however. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry I missed this comment earlier. As far as "Stardom", she was in an odd situation. She was already an international star as far as name- and image-recognition, but Hollywood just wasn't giving her starring roles-- never did, really, except for a few b-movies in the '40s. She did, later, star in some European movies, but those aren't the ones that really made her a star, those in the silent era did, as well as her magazine and other appearances... I think the heading, or something like it, is OK. I recall several sources using similar titles for chapters on this era-- Attaining Stardom, or something like that. As far as the prose-- prose that has been worked over and over by committee is likely to become bland and uninspiring, and to become more so the more picked over... My thoughts anyway. Dekkappai (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - This is very good, but the prose needs work as Tony and Jbmurray have pointed out. Choppy sentences and grammatical errors mean that this currently fails criteria 1a for "brilliant" prose. Even in the first paragraph of the lead I found something to change (which I did). "She had a long and varied career spanning film, television, stage, and radio." -> "Her long and varied career spanned film, television, stage, and radio." I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's much improved; but there are still little punctuation and sentence-structure glitches such as:

    In an interview with Doris Mackie for Film Weekly in 1933, Wong made reference to the nature of her Hollywood roles, "I was so tired of the parts I had to play."

    Should the comma after "roles" be a colon? The final period should be after the closing quotes.

    Could you explain why you believe that the final period ought to be outside the closing quotes? My understanding of logical quotation is that if the punctuation is a part of the quotation – as it is in this case – then it should be inside the quotes. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite such favorable reviews she became increasingly disappointed with her casting, and began to seek other roads to success.

    Move the comma to after "reviews".

    Sentence structure could be smoother: "In 1928, tired of being typecast and passed over for significant Chinese character roles in favour of non-Asian actresses, Wong left Hollywood for Europe." Why not: "Wong left Hollywood for Europe in 1928, tired of being typecast and passed over for significant Chinese character roles in favour of non-Asian actresses." Easier?

    • "London producer Basil Dean bought the play A Circle of Chalk for Wong to appear in with the young Laurence Olivier,[41] her first stage performance in the UK." Bit awkward.
    • "It was criticized because of her Californian accent, described by one critic as a "Yankee squeak", as a result of which Wong sought vocal tutoring at Cambridge University, where she acquired a British accent." Long snake. "As a result of which" might be "... "squeak"; as a result, Wong ..."
    • "kiss scene"—erky. Makes what should be a rather special activity sound like doing the dishes.

    This is on the borderline. Lots of work has gone into improving the article, which suggests diligence by its guardians. I can't decide whether to withdraw my oppose on the understanding that it will be improved further, whether before or after promotion, or to go with JB and Wackymacs and expect another sifting through by someone different. TONY (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC) (PS Absolutely nothing wrong with resubmitting it after a few weeks' with space to polish it.)[reply]

    Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per criterion three concerns:
      • Image:Anna May Wong in Thief of Bagdad.jpg is not low resolution (WP:NFCC#3B). Purpose of "to illustrate Wong's work" is inadequate; what is the significant contribution (NFCC#8) to our understanding of Wong? Why is prose insufficient to convey the understanding that she played a "dragon lady" or that the role introduced her to the public (NFCC#1)?
      • Image:Anna May Wong Shanghai Express.jpg: Purpose of "to illustrate Wong's work" is inadequete; how does this image illustrate a "sexually-charged scene"? The two are at arms length and not even looking at each other. If such illustration is needed to convey significant understanding, surly an alternative image is required.
      • Image:Daughter of shanghai.jpg: Purpose of "to illustrate Wong's work" is inadequate. Image appears purely decorative; it is not even next to prose germane to the film from which the scene comes. Even if moved, why is this image needed to understand Wong or her participation in the film?
      • Note that I've made assumptions about the intended function of these images; without meaningful purposes (or even captions!), I have no idea what these are actually supposed to be illustrating. If it really is as simple as providing an example of her work (i.e. to illustrate Wong's work), NFCC requires minimal use (NFCC#3A - multiple images are not used if one will do) and use of free alternatives (NFCC#1 - Image:Anna May Wong as Lotus Flower calling out in The Toll of the Sea.jpg is PD). Why are all needed for illustration? Why is the free image insufficient to convey understanding? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had my concerns about these images from the time they were added. It surprised me that this issue was not brought up before. Anyway, the Fair Use images have been removed. Dekkappai (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, as it appears impeccably sourced and well-laid out. A few points:
      • Wong received her first screen credit for Bits of Life, the first anthology film, in which she played the wife of Lon Chaney, Sr.'s character - it's not clear to me what an anthology film is.
      • Variety magazine singled Wong out for praise, noting her "extraordinarily fine playing". - does this mean she played an instrument? If so, note that. If it means "playing" in the sense of acting, then the direct quote should probably be truncated. ("extraordinarily fine" acting)
        • Changed
      • The most virulent Chinese criticism of Wong came from the Nationalist government, but China's intellectuals and liberals were not always as opposed to Wong, as demonstrated when Peking University awarded the actress an honorary doctorate in 1932 - this sentence meanders a bit, would be better split in two
      • he helped to "humanize" Asian-Americans to white audiences during a period of overt racism and discrimination. Asian-Americans, especially the Chinese, had been viewed as perpetually "foreign" in U.S. society - I don't think either of these scare quotes are needed
        • I removed the quotes around foreign, because they literally appeared foreign... It seems to me that the quotes around "humanized" are needed because they were not literally "humanized". They were human, after all. Also, I believe the quotes were used in the source, though it's been so long now, I forget... Dekkappai (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Selected filmography seems awfully skimpy. It's not an overwhelming long article, and I think a few more releases could be added there.
        • I've added the films mentioned in the article. Dekkappai (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tuf-Kat (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many thanks for the support and the good, helpful comments, TUF-KAT. I've tried to address all your concerns. Dekkappai (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, good work! Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Fix the following disambiguation links so they point to an article: The Thief of Bagdad and Westport.
    • I would suggest removing "References" section, keeping Notes, renaming Bibliography to References, and keeping Further reading, especially since Further reading are not references.

    Gary King (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Further reading" section may need to go up one subheading level so that it is not a subheading of "references". If you are referring to MOS about the other "notes" and "reference" section changes, please indicate which part of MOS. Snowman (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Status? There are three reviewers raising prose concerns; what is the status, has a ce been done, and have those reviewers been asked to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not really sure where we go from here, Sandy. The article has been reviewed and rewritten so many times that we are going in circles as to style and formatting. After the first request for ce at this review, I asked Malleus to look over the article, and he made numerous good changes, and added his "Support" vote. The continued opposes seem to be personal stylistic differences. Sure we could have more and more CE- make-overs, but, since the opposition seems to be on personal stylistic differences, it seems that this could potentially lead to previous "Supports" changing to "Opposes". No article is ever perfect, and some editor can always find a word-choice, a hyphen or a dash to quibble over. Since this review has gone on over a month now, and as my contributions here were mainly content, and I leave the formatting to other users, I am really at a loss over what to do next. It has been suggested to accept a "Fail" and bring the article back after a couple week's grooming, but I cannot see this working either. It has been groomed and groomed. Styles have been changed and changed back again. Continuing this on through another round seems pointless to me. I leave the choice over what action to take next up to the other editors. Dekkappai (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I see that both Jbmurray and Maralia have been through to copyedit, so you should be almost there once you've answered their remaining queries. Please keep the FAC page updated so I know when those queries are resolved, and you might want to ping the previous opposers as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Some changes to the prose have been made where it appears that reasonable suggestions were made. Other objections, such as to the phrase "kiss scene", which seem more like personal preferences and in some cases even misunderstandings, have not been acted on. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Image concerns resolved, Kelly hi! 04:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I extracted the passport photograph from the US government document. I assumed that the photograph itself was not the governments work. Would it be better to use the same copyright and use the US PD copyright template instead? Snowman (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No that's fine, I was just checking. The PD-US-Pre1978 license seems appropriate. Kelly hi! 17:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kelly hi! 15:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Re: Jbmurray's inline questions
      1. "what are these?" in reference to "outlying British provinces." I don't know either-- I paraphrased the source here. If it's too vague, feel free to omit that and just leave Scotland & Ireland, which were mentioned in the source.
        Can you give what the source actually says? We could then come up with a better paraphrase. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I could give the exact quote tomorrow. I'm pretty sure it's pretty close to what I have there though... "Scotland, Ireland & outlying provinces..." something like that. I'll check at home tonight though. Dekkappai (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Here's the exact quote: "After that Anna May moved back to England for nearly three years, appearing in such films as Limehouse Blues and Java Head, as well as performing on radio, where she took part in the King George Jubilee Program in 1935. She also traveled around Scotland, Ireland, and the outlying British provinces with a vaudeville troupe." Dekkappai (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      2. "Film producers capitalized on Wong's growing fame by using her brief appearances in these supporting roles to promote their films"-- Anna May Wong's name and image were used to publicize films-- e.g., she was placed prominently in advertising-- yet she was often given only minor, supporting roles in the films. Dekkappai (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I have just done a complete copyedit; I suggest asking those who had opposed on prose grounds to revisit. A few remaining issues:

    Resolved comments from Maralia (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "She had been planning to return to film in Flower Drum Song before her death in 1961, at the age of 56." - This reads poorly; she wasn't planning to return to film before her death.
      • Changed to "She had been planning to return to film in Flower Drum Song when she died in 1961, at the age of 56."
    • "in three major literary works and major film retrospectives." - Surely 'major' is not necessary twice?
      • One removed
    • "Long interested in Chinese opera, Wong was offered the opportunity of being instructed by Méi if ever she visited China." - This is awkward: passive voice weakens it, and she was offered instruction, not the opportunity of instruction. Perhaps 'Mei offered to train Wong in Chinese opera – a lifelong interest – if she ever visited China.'
      • Changed to "Long interested in Chinese opera, Méi offered to instruct Wong if she ever visited China." Dekkappai (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This doesn't quite work, because now you have a misplaced modifier (the first phrase modifies Mei but it's intended to modify Wong). How about 'Mei, made aware of Wong's interest in Chinese opera, offered to instruct her if she ever visited China.' Maralia (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops! My new version makes no sense. I've changed it to "She had long been interested in Chinese opera and Méi offered to instruct Wong if she ever visited China." Better? Dekkappai (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the part of Lotus, a deceitful song girl" - What is a 'song girl'?
    Maralia (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many thanks for the copy-edit, Maralia, and I hope I've addressed all your concerns. Dekkappai (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A few more:

    • This raises a 1b comprehensive question. I did a google search to source the Christian Scientist, and it can be sourced to Hodges: [70] Why isn't it in the text? Bigger concern: why does Hodges mention a 1953 breakdown that isn't included anywhere in this article? Why do they say breakdown on one page, and internal hemorrage on another (what was the deal)?[71] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It should be clear by now that Anna May Wong had a busy, interesting, multi-faceted life and career. Much has been left out, and the article has still been criticized for being too long. The Christian Science bit is easily sourced in many biographies, Chan has an entire chapter on her philosophical beliefs. And, in fact this was in the article at one point, and taken out... She had some sort of breakdown as a teenager too-- should mention of this be included? Easy enough to do... I could name dozens of things I find interesting, but had to leave out because this is not a full-length biography, but an encyclopedia article, so I'm sure you can go through the Hodges and Chan biographies and find something on every page that is interesting, and would, ideally, be included in a full-length biography. What is to be included and what is to be excluded is a decision that has to be made at some point, and different people are no doubt going to have differing ideas on what to include and what not to include. I can easily add and address all the concerns you raise, and will try to do so by the end of the day... at which someone else is free to edit them out... Dekkappai (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added this bit to the "Early life" section:
          • "While still a student, Wong came down with an illness identified as St. Vitus's Dance which caused her to miss months of school. She was on the verge of emotional collapse when her father took her to a practitioner of Traditional Chinese medicine. The treatments proved successful, though Wong later claimed this had more to do with her dislike of the methods. Other Chinese thought such as Confucianism and articularly Taoism and the teachings of Laozi had a strong influence on Wong's personal philosophy throughout her life. The family's religious life also included Christian thought, in the form of Presbyterianism, and as an adult she was a Christian Scientist for some time."
        • and this to "Later years"
          • After the completion of the series, Wong's health began to deteriorate. In late 1953 she began internal hemorrhage, which her brother claimed was due to the onset of menopause, her continued heavy drinking and financial worries." Dekkappai (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've rephrased that last addition slightly, to fix the awkward 'began internal hemorrhage' (reworded to 'suffered from an internal hemorrhage'), and to change 'claimed was due to' to the more neutral 'attributed to'. Maralia (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 'Further reading' section shouldn't be a subsection of References.
    • I fixed that one, some other WP:GTL issues, and few other things (it might be good to have User:Epbr123 run through); waiting for the rest of this list to be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just for consistency: there are a couple of Hodges footnotes that are missing the year (search on 'Hodges, p').
    • The bibliography entry for Countervisions: Asian American Film Criticism should include the name of the book's author (in addition to the name of the cited chapter's author, which is already listed).

    Maralia (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support My concerns have been addressed. Thanks for an interesting article. Maralia (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you for the helpful comments and the touch-ups, Maralia. Dekkappai (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:08, 9 June 2008 [72].

    PowerBook 100[edit]

    Self-nominator - Recently rewrote this from scratch. Good prose, fully referenced. Copyedits (some major, some minor) made by users Finetooth, La Pianista, AnnaFrance, GrahamColm and Laser brain. Archived peer review here. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    There is something wrong in ref 9 Wacky. --Efe (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for noticing it. Fixed. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome. --Efe (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Gary King (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dates in references need to be wikilinked (the ones that appear as YYYY-MM-DD).
    • "US $2,300" → "US$2,300"
    • "Priced at US$2,300" — Link the US$ here, so that it's at least linked once in the text itself.
    • "September 3, 1992" — Wikilink
    • Gary, dates don't have to be wikilinked at all. See MOSNUM. It's a most undesirable practice, since the developers are impossible to move on fixing the mechanism. TONY (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:SYL seems to say otherwise. Gary King (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    MOSNUM (MOS:SYL, which stands for what?) certainly doesn't say it's mandatory; on the contrary, MOSNUM simply points out the instances in which the autodud should not be used. What part of "A combination of a day number and a month can be autoformatted" seems to be mandatory? TONY (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but why is it undesirable? It formats dates according to individual user preferences. Gary King (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a raft of arguments and the petition. There's more when I find it. Further discussion on your talk. TONY (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gary King (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You are using {{citation}}, which I like less than {{cite web}}, but that is up to you. In any case, the dates are still not wikilinked (such as in "Joannidi, Christine (2002-03-14),"), and the accessdates also need to be wikilinked (such as "Retrieved on 9 May 2008") because it is showing backwards from how it should for me (I've got dates setup as January 1, 2008 so this shows 'incorrectly' for me.)
    Gary King (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In case you didn't know, the various cite templates are inconsistent when it comes to page numbers, and cite news does not allow usage without the title parameter being used (which presents a problem when you don't have the source title and only the publisher/volume/issue). These are both reasons of why I stopped using those, and switched to using solely {{Citation}}. Anyway, those things should be fixed now. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that perhaps something should be brought up with those templates, by maybe FAC submitters, including myself, yourself, and at least User:jbmurray, who also enjoys using {{citation}}? {{Citation}} is also poorly designed, too. We just need an administrator to edit the templates; if we make edits that don't affect existing pages using the template, then that should be fine. Also, if you look at the Most linked-to templates, {{cite web}} is there multiple times while {{citation}} doesn't even show up. Gary King (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't noticed anything wrong with {{Citation}}. But...such discussion is off-topic here, no? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The accessdates are returned incorrectly for {{citation}}, and there is no period at the end of it (which can't be fixed at this point, though.) Gary King (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but that is nitpicking. The page number inconsistency and how {{Cite news}} demands use of the title parameter are more annoying. Are all the issues in this article fixed now? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, very well done. I provided feedback during peer review and on a fresh read-through did not find any other issues. --Laser brain (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indeed. Good standard to set for computer-related articles, which have not typically been well-written. Thorough. Just two stylistic things: I'd avoid the "[person's name] decided to [do something]. Think carefully before "[person's name] began to ...". You might consider positioning "however," at the start of sentences. These are partly personal preferences. TONY (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, and a disclosure from me; I was invited to take a look at this article last week, or the week before, (a week is a long time on Wikipedia), and before the nomination, I made a few, minor, edits. I was, and I am still impressed with the readability of the article, despite its being about a computer. This is an important contribution to the history of the personal computer, well done Wacky, and I hope that there are no hard feelings between us with regard to our edit conflicts. Graham. GrahamColmTalk 21:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all - your contributions are valuable and were most welcomed. Thanks again for your help. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, this article's actually been on my TODO list for a while; seems you beat me to improving it. ;-) Anyhow, congratulations with another very good Macintosh-related article - the prose is top quality and the references are all solid. I'll read through it again tomorrow but I don't think there's much to complain about, apart from what has already been said. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Otherwise sources look good, and all the links checked out with the link checker. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it is reliable if you base it on their client list: http://www.lunar.com/portfolio/clients.html Lunar Design have worked for some of the best-known brands in the world. Its also the only source I could find for those specific design awards the PB100 received. I will add access dates where needed. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which current refs are missing access dates? I just went through and didn't notice any web refs without one. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Current ref 10 "Said, Carolyn" is the one I see now. I THINK there were more earlier, but I've slept since then... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm leaving the bit about the awards site out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. I'm on the fence about it. (I'm unwatching the FAC, btw) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It all looks pretty good - if you'll allow me to nitpick:
    • "It did not have a built-in floppy disk drive but was noted for its unique compact design that placed a trackball pointing device in front of the keyboard for ease of use." - it's not a contradiction so "but" shouldn't be used, but I think simply mentioning that it doesn't have a floppy disk drive is a bit strange - you should probably attach some importance to the statement. And although you do mention the trackball later on, you don't show that it was "noted".
    • "Apple announced its highest figures yet" - slightly unclear what you're referring to; was it their revenue which was the highest yet? I also don't like using "the highest" twice in a sentence, although it's hard to get around.
    • If you read the whole sentence, it does say "$7.1 billion in revenues" — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Double additive at the end of the first sentence with "in addition" and then "also" which could probably be avoided.
    • Is there even a such thing as a "double additive"? Why is this a problem exactly? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, meant to say first section not sentence. And I just thought it was slightly weak to have two sentences in a row which were effectively "also"s - maybe just a personal thing. Changed it myself now anyway. Trebor (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "Design", the sentence beginning "The 100, however," has too many subclauses; I find it very hard to follow the meaning.
    • If possible, some expansion on its legacy would be good. The previous reviews quoted don't explain why it's winning all these awards for being the greatest gadget - it comes as somewhat of a surprise. If there's been a modern review of it - why it was good, what influence it has had (if any) - that might be good to include.
    • I'm not sure what else would be said. The awards are for its design (hence, 'design awards'), which is sufficiently explained in the 'Design' section. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was more curious about the "greatest gadget of all time" (or tenth-greatest) accolade. It could just be me, but the rest of the article didn't seem to suggest it was that "good" (for want of a better word). The BBC link says it was chosen because it "helped define the layout of all future notebook PCs" - if that's true, I think more information on its legacy should be included. Trebor (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, finding reliable sources for that type of information would prove difficult. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from those pieces I thought it was a very well done article - informative, easy-to-read and well-referenced. Trebor (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Change to support. Trebor (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I might be missing it, but would it be feasible to have a little bit of a closing talking about the influence the 100 had on the next line of powerbooks, if any? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The subsequent models of similar form factor were the PowerBook Duo series, which improved upon the 100's portability. I guess you could say Apple used the 100 as the basis for the Duo's design. However, I don't have any sources to back this up kind of statement. The 100's successors are mentioned at the end of the lead, which I think is sufficient. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Excellent article. It brought tears to my eyes, since it was my first laptop, and I had convinced my employer at the time to buy it for me. I have one really minor concern, for which I have no answer. It mentions Apple's stock prices. Usually, in the financial press, stock prices are normalized by stock splits. We really should identify the price as being at the time. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:08, 9 June 2008 [73].

    Benjamin Franklin Tilley[edit]

    Self-nom. First Governor of American Samoa. Article is A-class, has been peer-reviewed. In my opinion, the article has two flaws which I am unable to address: it does not include much in the way about personal history of Tilley (due to a lack of non-military sources) and it leans heavily toward American Samoan history (which he is best known for). Despite these flaws, I believe that the article qualifies as FA. JRP (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • To address my own concerns (above) with this article, I managed to track down additional sources on his Spanish-American war activities and expanded that section, to offset his American Samoan history. I have included what additional information I could find about his personal life. JRP (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Current ref 23 "Tilley (2007) is lacking a publisher. Should be Governement of American Samoa, or something along those lines.
    • Your access dates and publication dates are a bit inconsistent. Mostly it's year-month-day, but one at least is day-month-year ("To be a captain in the Navy" NYTimes ... current ref 20)
    • Use or don't use the p. abbreviation for pages, but stick with one or the other for consistency.
    Otherwise sources look good. Links all checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed the publisher for the first point and the date for the second point. Unfortunately, I don't know what I can do about the third. The issue appears to be that the citation templates for "news" and "books" are inconsistent with respect to using the p. abbreviation. Short of not using the citation templates (which I'd rather not do), I don't think I can fix it. JRP (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You can put the "p." in the templates where the template doesn't put them in automatically. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    True! I simply hadn't thought of that. (Not that I think the templates shouldn't be more consistent with themselves "out of the box" though...) I've made the changes as you suggested. JRP (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes, not having caffeine helps in the morning, although most mornings.... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This source seems to have a bit more regarding his early life, including an exact birthdate and birthplace. BuddingJournalist 13:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. They actually just updated that fairly recently. (At least since I starting writing this article.) I emailed the maintainer of the site yesterday asking for his bibliography since the site has inline citations, but no key to what they mean. I was intending to use his sources directly, instead of citing a webpage, but since the page is written by the American Samoa govt. historian, it's probably fine. JRP (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I too was trying to decipher their citations. I found out that Arnold 1894 is Bristol County: Records of Births, Marriages and Deaths. Hope the USNHC: Tilley RO will be helpful (assuming the historian e-mails you back!). BuddingJournalist 13:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have integrated the extra details from the website and have managed to find a non-web source for his marriage information. I'll continue looking for non-web sources for the other since I know the FAs are rigorous about those. JRP (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments leaning towards support, just a few prose problems.

    • Lead - last sentence of the first paragraph, I think the middle phrase might be better off placed at the end of the sentence, so it'd be "At the conclusion of his 41 years of service, he was promoted to Rear Admiral, but he died shortly afterwards of pneumonia." As it stands, the pneumonia part breaks up the logical flow from "end of service to promotion".
    • Early life section ... the sentence starting "After graduation..." did he graduate as a midshipman? If so, perhaps "After graduation, he served as a midshipman, at first briefly on the ..."
    • Railroad strike section, I'd drop the "...and prevent damage." from the sentence starting "In response, ..."
    • Same section, the sentence "Military leaders feared rioters from Baltimore traveling to the District to seize or damage vulnerable targets such as the Treasury." Something is missing here. Do you mean that "...leaders feared rioters from Baltimore were traveling..."?
    • This paragraph is utterly uncited, by the way. The military leaders bit, at least, should probably be cited.
    • Acting-governor section, first paragraph, the sentence staring "Ultimately, the king.." is awkward. Perhaps "Ultimately, the king agreed to cede some sovereignty to the United States, but refused to ..."
    • Same section, second paragraph, the sentence starting "This was despite ..." it reads awkward, but not sure how to better word it.
    • Same section, third paragraph, sentence "There were similar issues overlaying United States political structures on Samoan ones." I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say, did you misplace a "with" between issues and overlaying?
    • Same section, fourth paragraph, the sentence starting "On November 9, 1901..." did you misplace a "from" between "wife" and "visiting"? Otherwise the sentence seems awkward.
    • Did he have children? Anything ever get named for him in Samoa or the US?
    Over all looks pretty good. Kinda dry, but it seems like he didn't have that exciting a career, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. Not too exciting, I suppose. But it must have been quite a day to be in charge of building a naval station one day and suddenly being in charge of a territory of thousands of people and a complicated political history. The Gray book goes into quite a bit of detail of his administration, but to include too much more than this would really overbalance the article.
    I have made edits for all of your suggestions except I am currently unable to find the Railroad Strike source. I was from a book dedicated to the strike, but I can't find it now. I'll keep looking. I also didn't include any record to his children yet. He had one son, also named Ben Tilley who joined the Navy, and two daughters. But... I don't know when. I'm also not aware of any things named for him. (His successor, Uriel Sebree, has about a dozen features in Alaska named for him because he was a member of the coast survey.) I'll keep digging and see if I can find something. JRP (talk) 04:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI: I am still working on your last two suggestions, but it may not be finished before Monday. (I'm out of town this weekend.) JRP (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found the missing reference and made as many of the other changes that you suggested as I can. (Not a lot of information on BFT's family in secondary sources that I have access to.) Can you please look it over and let me know if you would like to see other improvements? JRP (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. There are a few rough spots in the prose, but overall I think it meets the FA criteria. I did a bit of a copyedit to smooth some of the edges. This appears to be a comprehensive article, and I enjoyed reading it. Karanacs (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The territorial historian of American Samoa has been kind enough to review this article for me and has found no issues with it. (He's not on Wikipedia, so did not comment here himself.) JRP (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I'm sorry to play the 1a) card, but, well, here it is anyway. A few examples:
    • "While serving on the Frolic, he was promoted to ensign and he remained stationed there until 1869." It seems strange to use the word there in reference to a ship.
    • ... the expected wave did not arrive from Baltimore ...". The expected wave of what?
    • Returning to the Academy ...". The capitalisation throughout the article seems capricious. Shouldn't this be "academy" for instance?
    • "... was not present for the Battle of Santiago de Cuba ...". Makes him sound like a truanting schoolboy. Not present at?
    • "Construction of the naval station itself would not begin until twenty years later ...". Why not ... did not begin?
    • "Under this treaty, the British government relinquished their claims ...". British government is singular.
    • "Over the next year, Tilley ... accessed taxes ..." What does accessed taxes mean?
    • Tilley also created a small local militia of Samoans which were trained ...". Who were trained?

    I'd recommend some TLC from a sympathetic copyeditor. It's basically a pretty good article I think, but let down by the quality of its prose. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your comments. I have made some changes to address all of the concerns that you raise. I hope you will take a look and let me know any other areas where you think I can improve the prose. JRP (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's looking much better, but can you clarify this for me please? "Back at the academy, Tilley was promoted to lieutenant commander and appointed head of two departments: first the "Department of Astronomy, Navigation, and Surveying" and then the "Department of Mechanical Drawing". Was he head of those departments simultaneously, or one after the other? Why are the department names in quotes? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He was appointed to those departments sequentially. I think I added quotes because someone was complaining about the capitalization, but it should be just fine without them. (I notice that someone -- not you -- has recapped all of the instances of "Acting Governor" in the article after I had uncapped them based on a reviewer comment. Obviously, there's some differences of opinion on capitalization styles...) I can't fix it now, but I can fix it when I get home tonight. JRP (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've managed to fix this now. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions or concerns that I can try and fix. JRP (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely wasn't me that re-capitalised Acting Governor, I'm very much against the wikitrend of capitalising improper nouns. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead is slightly weird... it does a quick biography skim (1st para) and goes back and does it again in more detail (2nd). Makes for not-so-great reading. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've rearranged it slightly, but I'll look at it further later on today. I was trying to make the first paragraph an overview with the second paragraph being a summary of the biography portions of the article, but I agree it means you read things either twice or out of order. Shifting some sentences help. JRP (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's looking better, I've no objections. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. I have made three teeny-weeny edits [74] to a superb article. What a fascinating man and a full life. GrahamColmTalk 19:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OpposeSupport until the overlinking is fixed (requirement for "professional" standard of formatting). Some of the prose suffers from your being too close to it to see things that are probably unclear to most readers. Can you get someone fresh to go through it. However, I think it's a worthy piece: well done. Here are random issues (random, note).

    • "As a young man of 15"—as an old man of 15?
    • The top of the article is really quite heavily linked (bright blue splashed everywhere). Do we really need "commander" and "gunship" to be linked? Sp–Am. War is linked twice in the lead. And lots of other repeat links? This dilutes the high-value links. And if "Santiago" is linked, why link "Chile" next to it? Try to ration for a whole bunch of reasons.
    • "before being transferred to the"—better "before his transfer to the", yes?
    • "The strike sparked riots; cities such as Pittsburgh and Philadelphia experienced deaths and destruction." What about this: "The strike sparked riots, with consequent death and destruction in cities such as Pittsburgh and Philadelphia."
    • "put down" twice in a para. Is there a synonym?
    • Chronology sometimes a little fuzzy: "After the strike, Tilley was transferred to the flagship USS Powhatan before requesting a six-month leave. He married Emily Edelin Williamson, the daughter of a Navy surgeon, on 6 June 1878 and left with her on an extended honeymoon in Europe." So ... the six-month leave was for the marriage and honeymoon, we presume. Was it?
    • "Tilley served in the United States Naval Academy and remained there, or on a training ship, until 1882"—this is hard; so the training ship wasn't part of the Academy or his duties for it? Readers shouldn't have to piece things together. TONY (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll work on these later on today. Thanks for your feedback. JRP (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comments. Many of these changes were made by the excellent copyediting that another editor has done today, but I picked up the rest. Can you please take a look and let me know if you see any further problems? JRP (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm liking this. But the USS San Francisco can't have transported troops to Santiago, as it's not a port; I'll make what I think is the obvious change. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've fixed a couple of Latin America-related issues (e.g. Santiago's not a port; the Panama Canal does not go through Nicaragua). But this remains as a rather tendentious summary account of the origins of the Spanish-American war: "On April 23, 1898, Spain declared war on the United States in response to American efforts to support Cuban independence." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the deed of cession, signed on April 17, 1900, listed Manu'a as part of the United States' new territory, but was not signed." Well, was it signed or not? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "Later career and death," he never actually dies. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general, this is pretty good, I think. A little proseliny at times--anything that can be done to jazz up the prose would be welcome--but basically it's almost there. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try and address your concerns later on today (can't edit right now), but to to deed of concession section, that wording has been frequently challenged and I'm not sure it has proper meaning anymore. I'll try and re-do it. What happened is that he didn't get Manua's leadership to sign the deed transferring control to the US. Being the good colonialist he was, he simply went through with the whole ceremony with Manua listed on the deed but without a matching signature and then he promptly just more or less ignored that they weren't part of the territory. It wasn't resolved until 1904. I'll let you know when I can address your concerns in the text. JRP (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made all the changes you requested, though some look to have been done by another editor earlier today (thanks!). I keep working on the prose, but the other elements are better. Can you please let me know if you see further issues? JRP (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just seen your note here, and struck accordingly. It'd be nice to explain the origins of the Spanish-American war differently, I think, but it's not a deal-breaker as far as I'm concerned. I'll try to look over the article again in the next couple of days. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - great work and an interesting read. A couple things:
      • I was curious about Tilley's promotion from ensign to "master" (no wikilink) and then to lieutenant. Currently, the rank there is Lieutenant, Junior Grade. Did it used to be called "master"? Now, "master" normally refers to a Master Chief Petty Officer which is a non-commissioned rank. Is any more information available?
      • I'd prefer a clearer term than "quasi-official"; what does that mean? --Laser brain (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe that Master was an early term for Lieutenant JG, but there's no wikipedia page for it and so it didn't link it. I'll leave a note on WPMILHIST about it and see if I should just create it as a redirect or if there's a story behind it. The fact that he was promoted to "master" comes from a couple of good sources and I assume it's just a historical thing, like "commodore". JRP (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, I removed "quasi-official" since it didn't add anything. Please let me know if you have further corrections that I should make. JRP (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have researched some and built a stub page for the rank of master. Looks like it was in use until 1883, replaced by Lieutenant, JG. I've also wikilinked it in the article. JRP (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Gary King (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gary King (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • References and disambiguation links fixed. Thanks for pointing them out. JRP (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gary King (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: there's a problem here with inconsistent date linking in the citations (no concern about which method you use, as long as you're consistent throughout the article). For example:

    • Tilley. Government of American Samoa (2007). Retrieved on May 18, 2008.
    • Hamersly, Lewis Randolph (1898). The Records of Living Officers of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps (PDF), 6th ed., New York: L. R. Hamersly and co., p. 106. Retrieved on April 13, 2007.
    • Date is wikilinked and displays according to user preferencs, which for me is in format Month Day, Year. Compared to:
    • Miscellaneous", The New York Times, 1866-07-21, p. 6.
    • Date is unlinked, ISO format. Someone else should have brought this up :-) Since dates are linked throughout the article, it would be consistent to wikify the dates in the citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Access dates are always linked in "cite web", which I don't understand. There is no navigational aid to linking to the date when an editor looked something up. Unlike, say, a date= tag on "cite news" or "cite journal" where there could be some value to looking up what else happened at the same time. (But, even that value is tenuous.) Unfortunately, I can't turn it off.
    I'll wikify the dates in the citations, if you like. Can I just wikilink them in ISO format and they magically show up the right way for you or do you want them converted to MM DD, YYYY so that they show up consistently for logged out users too? JRP (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's one of the many reasons some of us hate cite templates (lack of consistency). Yes, just adding brackets around your other dates will wikify them and cause them to show up the same according to user preferences. To be completely consistent, you migth also convert those couple of dates in cite templates (Month day, year) to ISO format, and then all citations will show the same for logged out users as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All done! Do you have any other suggestions for ways that I can improve this article? JRP (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Beautiful (and fast, too!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:23, 8 June 2008 [75].

    Thoroughbred[edit]

    Self-nom I'm nominating this article for featured article because the Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine has worked hard on this article, it's been through a rigourous GAN with Van Tucky, had a PR, and we now feel it's ready for FAC.

    Co-nom with Montanabw (talk · contribs), Dana boomer (talk · contribs), Cgoodwin (talk · contribs) and Getwood (talk · contribs). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support, great work! Tentative Support - nice work! Only a few minor concerns at this time.
      • "... was first developed during the 17th and 18th centuries in England" Consider "in 17th and 18th century England" if you agree the meaning is the same.
    Changed per your suggestion. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are importing to England and then into North America; choose one and go with it.
    Caught a couple. Might be more still lurking. Went with "into" Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A bit of redundancy in the lead: the last two paras begin with "Thoroughbreds are used mainly for racing ..." and then "Although Thoroughbreds are seen in many sport disciplines, they are bred mainly for racing ..." I know you are explaining two different ideas, but maybe you can reword the latter.
    Leaving this one for the wordsmiths among my co-noms (Dana? Montana?) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave it a go. Not etched in stone if anyone objects. Getwood (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a bit of jargon that could stand some basic context or wikilinking, such as "foundation sire" and "foundation stock".
    Tried to explain Foundation Sire in a footnote. Put in "breeding" between "foundation" and "stock" which hopefully helps make the context clear. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also in the process of creating foundation bloodstock as at least a stub that explains it. Montanabw(talk) 04:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, good. The last thing I wanted to do was add another article to my pile of "created stub, need to expand" stack. Thanks, Montana Ealdgyth - Talk 12:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The race was over 3 mi (4,800 m), and although Iambic carried 4.5 stone (29 kg) more than Asil ..." I'm not sure what this means. Was the horse carrying a load? Is this referring to the weight of the horse? The jockey?
    That's a handicap. In order to make races as fair as possible, handicaps of added weight are given to horses that are considered "better" runners. Thus, Iambic's jockey had an extra 29 kg stuck into his saddle (they have special pockets on racing saddles for the weights which are in bar form) to try to help even out the odds on the race. Linked to handicap race and worded it a bit less jargony. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Very interesting.. they still do that now? --Laser brain (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they still do it in races for older, more experienced horses. Montanabw(talk) 04:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "World War I almost destroyed the French breeders ..." I'd prefer "destroyed French breeding" so no one takes it literally. Unless you meant it literally.
    Nope, didn't mean it literally. Reworded per your suggestion. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Although in some cases it could be taken literally also! (smile) But no, we agree. Montanabw(talk) 04:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jargon alert: broodmares
    Linked AND explained! (how's that for service!) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    --Laser brain (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - Truly important question: Who's checking the references? :-) Here's are my findings from this otherwise excellent article.

    Heh. I checked them before hand? Im pretty sure my fellow participants at Wikiproject Equine find my habit of whacking sources annoying, but they put up with me somehow. I'm sure someone will check the sources for me.. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Breed characteristics: Hot-blooded has a hyphen here, but not in the lead.
    Hm, not sure which is correct. Someone else have the answer? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed it, per my handy dictionary. (Do we do strikeout on the ones we fixed? Montanabw(talk) 04:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, the person who left the comments does the striking out here. We don't use graphic done tick marks either! (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • History, Beginnings in England: Ref 19 is not following punctuation.
    This isn't a ref, it's an explanatory footnote, trying to explain what a foundation sire is. We don't have an article on that, and the explanation is rather long. If anyone has a better idea how to integrate the information into the prose, please let us know. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Refs out of order later in paragraph [22][16].
    Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In America: A few locations unlinked. I see Kentucky, Tennessee, Long Island, California, and Florida.
    I'll link them, but I expect I'll get Tony1 telling me to unlink them later.... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Epsom Derby was already linked in previous section.
    Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Europe: World War I and World War II are linked here. If you want to have these linked, I recommend moving them up to the last paragraph of In America.
    got it. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Derby Stakes already linked in previous section.
    Done Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last paragraph has four unlinked countries. The other countries mentioned are linked, so these probably should be as well.
    Done Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Other Areas: The title should be In other areas.
    oops, I know that! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • South Africa isn't linked here. The location linking seems inconsistent in general.
    Done Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Italy linked twice in the section.
    Done Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One note from the References, of all places: The full reference of Robert M. Miller's "And They Call Us Horse Lovers" from Cowboy Magazine has a formatting error. It says "Retrived on on".
    It says a date in Feb for me, did it get fixed in the meantime? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I made it about halfway through the article. After these are done, I will come back to review the rest of it. Giants2008 (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - The second half is looking very good. The following is all I could find that was questionable. By the way, I took a look at the reference I noted above, and the formatting looking fine. I have no idea what's going on there.
    • Registration, breeding, and population: "One reason is that more possibility of error exists" Try "a greater possibility of error exists".
    Done. Dana boomer (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Selective breeding: You might want to attribute the quote here.
    Done. Dana boomer (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excess stress: "and too intense a racing schedule may also contribute." I think the first part of this can be improved.
    Done. Dana boomer (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two straight sentences start with One of the.
    Done. Dana boomer (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the Chicago Sports Review article was removed from the citations, is there any reason to leave it in the References column?
    Done. Dana boomer (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Giants2008 (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Bit trickier than the other three. [76] gives an overview of them. It's referencing "As a ratio (of injuries with eventually fatal complications to total competitions), this is far in excess of all other legal human and animal sports, including boxing, motorsports and greyhound racing." and the article in question was up when we worked on the article for GA, but it's gone now from online. I believe National Sports Review is a sports magazine, but I'm not sure if the article itself was published or just on their web page. I can't find the article now on their site. (As an aside, I don't think I know I didn't add the information and I'm thinking it was added by a non-racing fan, so if we have to lose the information, I won't cry.) I can possibly replace the data with something else, but it's going to take a bit. The real issue for me is that the article is gone, not so much the reliablity of the site itself. (Although it's part of the whole "racing is horrible" section, so it's possible it was POV one way, and may not have been a reliable site either.) Montana, you have better luck searching out this sort of thing, anything? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I also cannot bring up the article, and the Wayback Machine says the page is blocked, so no help there. As to the source itself, it's an online sports review site with a broader range of articles than mainstream sources, from their site, "a sports community that not only provides its members with a chance to read the kind of stories they won’t find in their daily newspaper or on ESPN.com," so I'd classify it as lacking a real heavy editorial hand. For that reason, I think we need to just remove that sentence, IMHO. And, I have done so. Montanabw(talk) 03:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Published magazine, see [77] Ealdgyth - Talk 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This one is sponsored by the National Sporting Library, which is probably one of the three best research libraries for horses and racing in the United States. (Keenland Library, Huntingdon Library are the others I'm thinking of). Most of the authors on the site are well known in the (admittedly small) field of Thoroughbred history. They write for national magazines, etc. on the racing industry. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • jockeyclub.com
    Jockey Club is the registering authority for Thoroughbreds in the United States. Their breed registry. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All other sources look fine, and while there is a 404 on the link-check tool, I was able to access it; links appear to work Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks, just to clarify for us ignorant of horses :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, I never mind sourcing questions. (I'd better not!) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • "interchangeably, [2] though" — extra space
    Done. Dana boomer (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "1 mi (1,600 m) to 1.75 mi (2,820 m)" — Use km like you did with "4 mi (6.4 km),"
    Done. Dana boomer (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really like the way that the references are all "author / title / pages" and would prefer "author / year / pages", but to each his own. At least you're consistent in this.
    My fault. It was how I was trained as a historian, and looking at recent articles/books, it still seems like the usual method. I know that the sciences use the other method, but I can't ever keep straight which book was published in which year, it's easier to use the title. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The prose looks pretty good, and I trust the other reviewers who have taken a look at this article. Gary King (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments Support, all my points dealt with. The article meets FA standard. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • DONE The article is very insistent that "Thoroughbred" is a proper name which should be capitalized. There are two issues here. Firstly I don't think this is nearly as common in Britain - I don't know about other English-speaking countries. Secondly, a quick look suggests it is not done by most American news sources. The first page of this search shows the NY Times, Newsday, Voice of America & the Louisville Courier-Journal, KY (who ought to know frankly) all using lower-case. Especially in phrases like "thoroughbred racing/breeding" etc, although clearly it is the breed that is referred to. I see this was brought up for the GA review, but I'm not convinced by the answer.
    It's a proper noun. The official name of a breed. Otherwise, that section is Montanabw's baby. (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, all of the articles on the page that you linked to are referring to the Thoroughbred breed (as opposed to purebred horses in general), and as such, as Ealdgyth said, it is a proper noun and the authors/editors really should know better... I hadn't realized what a common error this was until I saw this list of articles though! Dana boomer (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying it isn't a breed, or can't have a capital T, especially in the US, but when an "error" is made by sources such as these, I'm dubious it is indeed an error rather than a difference in usage. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that one was my baby. It's an issue of ignorance and maybe language drift, just like how people often say colt when they really mean foal, and how folks now are so often saying "reign in" instead of "rein in." (even in newspapers!) I guess I'd like to see a style guide say that it can be used lower case! (LOL!) If the word "error" would cost this FA status, we could tone it down again, but frankly unless it's a deal-breaker, I think that it is an important usage note to keep, particularly in absence of contrary guidelines. JMO. Montanabw(talk) 16:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's more than that. The capitalization of breed names is relatively recent, and I suspect that older breed names, established before that (and not themselves derived from a proper noun like Airedale terrier etc), are not generally capitalized in the UK, and it would apppear, in much non-specialized US usage. Just calling this an "error" won't wash. See for example Collie; English Foxhound, written from an entirely American perspective (despite the fact only 17 are apparently registered there) wrongly uses capitals, which are certainly not used in normal English prose. I'm not a horsey person and I'm not aware of ever having seen thoroughbred treated as a proper noun before I saw this article. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. On one hand, the breed is a proper noun, if dog breeders say "thoroughbred dog" with a little "t" they aren't discussing a specific named horse breed. I guess that's the difference. As for rules, so many horse breeds have geographical place names (Clydesdale, Belgian, Dales Pony, Connemara, Timor Pony, Arabian, Tennessee Walker, etc...) or named after people (Morgan, for example), I can't see capitalizing some but not others, even in the UK, that is illogical. But then I am a Yank, so what do I know? (LOL!). Not something to have heartburn over. Oh, and I tweaked the para a bit, maybe clarified that it is primarily horse breeders who consider other usage incorrect (and literally, open most horse books and you will find a rant on this topic. It's clear in the realm of "pet peeve" LOL!) Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - maybe it just needs a bit on the divergence of horsey & much general usage, especially in compound phrases, and I suspect in the UK, maybe elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made an attempt at this - I think something along these lines needs to be said, gicen the weight of the evidence. Some of your references, like the New Scientist & another scientific paper, could also be cited. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy with your additions. Hopefully that solves it. Montanabw(talk) 19:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • DONE "Beginnings" begins: "All modern Thoroughbreds carry the genetics of three stallions imported into England from the Middle East in the late 17th and early 18th centuries: the Byerly Turk (1680s), the Darley Arabian (1704), and the Godolphin Arabian (1729).<ref>Milner ''The Godolphin Arabian'' pp. 3–6</ref><ref>Wentworth ''Authentic Arabian Horse'' p.</ref> All modern Thoroughbreds trace back to these imported stallions." - carry the genetics? Maybe an English thing; here you carry "genes". If you change to genes you would not have to repeat the point just after. The prose is not great through this complicated section: "Other mares were of various oriental breeding"
    Corrected and clarified a bit, did a bit of copyediting also to remove some redundancies. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • DONE (& linked) "By the end of the 18th century, the English classic races had been established" - "Classic" should be a capitalized proper noun here, though rephrasing may be needed. See British Classic Races.
    Capitalized it. I believe I had it capitalized when I wrote it, but I suspect it got changed to lowercase by a non-racing fan copyeditor, and then missed by me. Oops! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • DONE "There are slightly under 1.3 million Thoroughbreds in the United States today,[66] and about 37,000 Thoroughbred foals are registered each year in North America" How does that work? Are the 1.3m all registered? Needs explanation.
    Clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One point added, but it is no clearer. Unless birth rates have just fallen massively recently, or there are massive imports, it suggests an average life-span of over 35 years! Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, those are the numbers direct from the US Jockey Club. If I had to guess, and go into OR territory, it's a combination of the fact that some deaths don't get reported and there are more imports than exports. For example, the AQHA (the registry for Quarter horses) automatically marks a horse dead at 25 years, and the owner must submit proof every year that the horse is alive. I'm not sure what the procedures of the Jockey Club are, honestly. I have to say I trust the numbers of foals registered number better than the total number figure, and if you'd like, we can cut out the "total number" figure, and just leave the number of foals registered. The only place I know that gives information on the numbers of horses per breed is a VERY expensive publication by the American Horse Council, and they get their numbers from the registries anyway. The JC only gives that 1.3 million figure in a "fluff" pamplet designed to bring folks into racing, while the foal crop number comes from their online fact book. It's up to you. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, maybe leave the foals in the text, & put the total into the notes, with a brief comment on the apparent discrepancy per above. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Took your excellent suggestion. Let me know if that works, or if I got something off in the writing. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, looks fine. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • DONE (very nicely, though maybe the amounts in millions could be stated in round millions - not sure what MoS says) Nothing about the value of the horses at various stages of their life, which seems an odd omission. Nor is there anything about their longevity/useful life as racers. What happens to the ones who don't race well? Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We can get really complicated in this because it's all over the map. It's an extremely high-risk business. Some yearlings never sell again for more than they did at Keeneland, others are resold for much more than their original price (I think, for example, Seattle Slew was purchased as a yearling for something like $17,000 and obviously was syndicated for millions for his owners after winning the triple crown.) The lucky ones that don't race well may be retired to new careers as saddle horses in various other disciplines (we do say that, somewhere--ideas for how we can do it better?) but the ugly (and edit-war-provoking) reality is that a lot also get canned. In fact, even a former Kentucky Derby winner, Ferdinand, was canned (happened in Japan, not the USA), see here, when he turned out to not be successful as a breeding stallion. Don't know how to handle that without massive POV problems, the horse slaughter article is an edit warring battleground nightmare and we really don't want to be dragged into it. Horses may race for a year, or they may race for several years, it depends on how well they do and if they stay sound. Geldings, having no value as breeding animals, are usually raced the longest. Mares usually hit the track just enough to prove themselves and head for the broodmare band ASAP. Stallions are in-between; the more they run and win, the more they are worth, but run one race too many and have them break down, the horse is then destroyed and not worth zip. Montanabw(talk) 19:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. Values of racehorses vary by country and their racing career. It's not really possible to give figures that might be current or would stay current. Mares usually retire to become mothers. Geldings (castrated males) often become hunters or show horses or just riding horses. The slaughter houses in the US are closed down, so they don't go there any more. Some go to retirement/adoption places. Stallions (and there are more stallions in the TB breed than usually seen in other breeds) often go on to breeding careers, which is one reason why the Jockey Club is insistant on no artificial means of breeding like artificial insemination or shipping semen, it helps give a career for lesser stallions. I used to work for a summer camp that had a few reconditioned/retrained ex-racehorses as lesson horses. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is any help here, without making it too complicated, the new farm bill is going to tweak tax depreciation on racehorses from seven years to three, reflecting more of an average traxk career. Track retirees often have long careers as riding horses, if they are reasonably sound. Ealdgyth is correct that the range of values is astonishing. Derby winners syndicate for millions, broken down retirees go "free to a good home." It all depends. Montanabw(talk) 16:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe add some record/average yearling prices, explaining these are far from typical. They are I suppose the most valuable animals in the world & I think this aspect needs mention. A bit more on the other wider lives led by the horses too - outside racing. Are there figures for the numbers in race training or who race annually? Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone and put up some representative numbers. The British Horseracing Authority doesn't track their statistics exactly the same as the US Jockey Club, so it's not quite equivilent. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • DONE The use & linking of Jockey Club is not consistent with the articles The Jockey Club (US) and the Jockey Club (UK), leading to the same ambiguity, thoiugh in fact I think it is, a tad typically, always the US one that is meant. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll go through and double check all usages. There should be a few French usages also... I think every Thoroughbred registry is called Jockey Club something or another. Should get to this this afternoon! Thanks Johnbod. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Went through and made sure it was always "The Jockey Club" when I'm referring to the American registry. The reason there isn't much about the UK JC, is that it's not in charge of the registering of Thoroughbreds in the UK, that's done by Weatherby's. It's only in the US that the whole shebang of racing authority and registering is done by one organization. Let me know if I missed any, I think I got them all. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comments

    When I was growing up, Ocala, Florida was a beautiful span of horse farms. Now it's another cultural hellhole of strip malls. I thought the article was interesting, but I did have some difficulty understanding the writing in it.

    • What do you think about this sentence in the lead, since I didn't know what hot-blooded means: Thoroughbreds are considered "hot-blooded" horses, which are known for their agility, speed and spirit. Perhaps do similar for the warmblooded term.
      • Cut some verbiage to see if it reads cleaner. Comment "hot-blood" and all the others are defined in the horse article, and wikilinked. Will we be bloating the article if we define terms in text when they wikilink to a definition? Montanabw(talk) 09:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first sentence in Terminology kind of halts. I find it would flow better to define the Thoroughbred, then state that the term is used too widely to be technically correct.
      • DONE (?) Tweaked paragraph a bit per this comment and others. See if it is better. Basically, the para does state that "horse breeders" consider certain forms correct or incorrect, and if you check the footnote, there is a fuller explanation. Montanabw(talk) 09:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it a horse thing to have "brown" in quotations?
      • DONE Not necessarily, and I tossed the quotes if they are giving people heartburn, but genetically "bay" and "brown" are the same color, and bay is more correct terminology, but "brown" is used, even by the breed registry, sometimes, to describe a particular dark brown shade that other people call "black bay" or "mahogany bay." It's marginally sloppy usage, at least genetically. (Like calling the fetlock an "ankle", when it isn't) Worse yet, the Kentucky Derby winner Big Brown isn't even "brown," he's a blood bay. Just to confuse matters further. Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If "hot-blooded" is a common classification, should it be in quotations in Breed characteristics?
    • Variate sentence starts in the first paragraph of Beginnings in England. Since you mention the grey coat color going back to two other sires, are there characteristics to be traced specifically back to the original three?
      • DONE. Tweaked phrasing to put gray in better (i.e. less significant) context. Good question. The other three weren't gray, so I guess the point is that there were some additional foundation stallions, though of lesser importance. That section was longer, we cut some of it. Is your suggestion that we expand or cut? Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the same way I don't understand third cousins twice removed, I don't understand the first sentence in the second paragraph.
      • Basically, each of the three foundation sires wound up with only one male descendant that still appears in modern pedigrees. We can look at that one and see if we can word it better. Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence after that, to avoid repetition, how about The only male line that has been maintained to the present was Matchem, the grandson of the Godolphin Arabian. Also, I don't understand the significance of male-only lines.
      • Well, Matchem, Herod, and Eclipse, actually. The significance of male-only lines was sort of traditional, stallions have way more offspring than mares, but we know now, there are also certain traits carried only on the Y chromosome, just as the "tail female" dam line is also significant, and in part because we now realize the significance of mtDNA. Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this sentence: The addition of Arabian bloodlines ultimately led to the creation of the General Stud Book (GSB) in 1791 and the practice of official registration of horses please clarify in addition to what, since it seems Thoroughbreds came from Arabians.
      • Note last paragraph of section, which explains the mares. They were from many breeds. We are open to suggestions for how we can say this better (?)
        • Took a stab at it with "The addition of Arabian bloodlines to the native English mares ultimately led to the creation of the General Stud Book (GSB) in 1791..." which hopefully clarifies things a bit more. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • in actual number of lines of descent in modern Thoroughbreds, most horses have more crosses Is this males or females?
      • Both. Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • added in "... in actual number of all lines of descent, not just paternal, in modern Thoroughbred pedigrees..." which hopefully makes more sense. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand this sentence: As a percentage of contributions to current Thoroughbred bloodlines, another horse, Curwen's Bay Barb, contributed more than the Byerly Turk Numbers of percentages would be helpful to illustrate this point.
      • (Who had this particular source? Ealdgyth? Can we tweak? I think this is yours) Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My source, which didn't give percentages. I have another one I can check, but it'll be later today. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Put in percentages to give more context. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the article so far refers to male lines, can it also refer to female or mare lines instead of mare "families"?
      • See last paragraph of section. Not sure where the confusion is. Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thoroughbred breeders always refer to "male lines" and "female families". It traces back at least as far as Lowe's families. Do you want us to clarify it more? Suggestions are welcome. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The abrupt mention of racing in Later development of Britain makes it sound as if racing in Britain began with the 18th century. Can you mention why Thoroughbreds were bred in the first section? Why import horses from far away and concentrate all the effort?
      • We could tweak that a bit to make for a clearer transition. (Ealdgyth or Dana? Can you draft (as you have the sources) an intro explaining the point, I can wordsmith if needed?) Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I have the sources at home... let me see what I have here on the road. I'll throw something up. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is now a brief paragraph explaining the development of racing. Probably needs prose tweaking. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems as if this sentence hangs at the end as an afterthought: Up until the end of the 19th century, Thoroughbreds were bred not only for racing but also as saddle horses
      • DONE. Moved sentence to a later paragraph on the 19th century, seems to fit better there. Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would steeplechasing be more accurate to describe with "using fences and other obstacles in races", rather than "racing over fences," which sounds as if the entire race is over many fences. I can't even visualize what that might be.
      • DONE. Cut the definition and just left the wikilink, but do we now have a jargon problem? Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The flow in In America is confusing. Sir Archy is significant, horse racing centers were moved, Sir Archy's impact. Can you state briefly in the first paragraph that X of Sir Archy's descendants were race winners or otherwise important?
      • We could add a few more words about Sir Archy (Ealdgyth? Your source?) Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Basically he was THE stallion of his time. Everything that is distinctly American about American Thoroughbreds traces to him. I'll throw something in. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've added some information, which probably needs a bit of copyediting. We don't really know how many of his offspring won races because there are no organized records from this time. The earliest compiled race records I have heard of date from the 1850's. Sir Archy died in 1833, and most of his offspring would have finished racing by the time compiled records started. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you variate verb or noun? This change meant a change in breeding practices
    • Periods of time after the Civil War are mentioned twice in the same paragraph.
    • How about changing the second WWII to 1945?
      • WWII appears five times in the article, and in we don't mention dates, we just put in a wikilink for those who need that data. Is there an incorrect date that slipped by? Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the last paragraph needs a topic sentence to state the many uses of Thoroughbred sires in the US. Otherwise, the many listed uses seem jumbled together.
    • Can something first arrive in two years?
    • What caused the "war damage" in France? To the horses because they were used in war or something else?
      • How much should we expand? In war, particularly WWI, horses were confiscated for calvary and draft use, they got eaten for horsemeat, turned loose to fend for themselves and never found again, farms are bombed, horses get shot, starved, but the source we cite doesn't get that specific, I don't think, I wouldn't want to get into the realm of OR...? Ealdgyth, did your source go into detail on "war damage"? Montanabw(talk) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I recall, my source didn't really go into it. I can see what I have around, but basically it was because of confiscations, damage to stud farms, and other things that Montana described. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to read through the rest of the article thoroughly tomorrow. --Moni3 (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry for taking so long to respond. Had a few days of fun, including a quick trip to the ER...

    • I like the improvements made to the article portion I previously reviewed. It reads much better now, though not all my requests were met.
    • I went through and fixed minor problems, but I noticed the % sign is used, as well as "percent". It should be consistent throughout.
    • Change to Support. --Moni3 (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is it that we should use, % or percent? I never have been good with this MOS stuff. And ACK about the ER thing! Hope you're better. If you disagree with anything we've not done, go ahead and speak. I think we all want this to be the best article it can be, and given that we're all horse people, it's sometimes hard to see the jargon/context we assume. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Either is appropriate according to the MOS, as long as it is consistent throughout the article. I've had requests in my previous articles to change % to percent, but you can use either one. I'm better, though I'm sleeping a lot. --Moni3 (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • This article is very good as far as it goes - but it doesn't say anything about what thoroughbreds are actually like. From my experience they tend to have particular temperaments and require a particular style of riding compared to less warmblooded types. Some people won't ride them and others won't ride anything else (i don't mean in racing - I mean ordinary riding). I know horses all differ but if, for example I was reading an article on Jack Russells and then one on labradors, I would expect to come out with some broad idea of their temperaments and personalities. Fainites barley 22:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but the problem is, that's stereotyping and horse people get very irate about it, either for or against. And honestly, our sources don't really talk about TB temprament much other than to say they are "hot-blooded". I'm more than happy to see sourced statements that detail it, but I haven't run across any. (Of course, the history section is the main section I worked on, Dana and the others did the rest. For some reason, they always leave me the history sections... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Ealdgyth. Saying "hot-blooded" says all that needs to be said, really. To go into detail about handling or, god forbid, a warmblood versus TB discussion will start edit wars. We most assuredly do NOT want to go there. Horrors! If the non-horse people think this article is already obscure and filled with jargon, heaven forbid we start discussing training and riding! =:-O Montanabw(talk) 03:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OK. Point taken. Better out than impossible to present. Pity though. :-/ Fainites barley 07:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The sentence starting "while one genetic study" under "foundation stallions" has too many subclauses making it a mildly confusing read.Fainites barley 07:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've broken it into two sentences and tweaked the wording a bit. Does it read better now?Dana boomer (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - much better. (I've never understood this prejudice against the use of however. A most useful word in my view). Fainites barley 20:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:23, 8 June 2008 [78].

    Calgary Hitmen[edit]

    After much work, I believe this article now passes all FA criteria. It is comprehensive, well cited, numerous complimentary images and remains focussed on the topic. Currently a GA, and I look forward to all feedback. Self-nom Resolute 15:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Issues resolved Giants2008 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - I'm first up, so here are my comments so far.

    • Shouldn't it be Bret "The Hitman" Hart, capitalizing the second word? This matches Hart's article. Same thing in Controversial beginnings.
    • "onto" should be two words when used like this.
    • History: Spell out WWF? Its context is clear here, but we wouldn't want any confusion with this WWF.
    • Controversial beginnings: I don't see why Hart needs another link here.
    • Remove comma from In January, 1997.
    • Remove of from in June of 1997.
    • Recent years: 3rd or 4th. Change to third or fourth?
    • Typo: it's→its.
    • "The 2005–06 Hitmen battled the Medicine Hat Tigers for top spot in the WHL for much of the season." Top spot seems like it should have the behind it.

    More later Giants2008 (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • All of these fixed or changed. Thanks for catching some of those grammatical errors... hard to see after reading over the text 100 times, heh. Resolute 19:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed just now that wrestler is linked in Controversial beginnings, and not in History, where the term is first mentioned. I would move the link.
    • Fixed. Actually, most of that statement was redundant, given it was already mentioned that Hart is a Calgary based wrestler in the previous sub-section
    • A lot of overlinking in Recent years. Brandon Wheat Kings and Moose Jaw Warriors are both linked twice despite already being linked in the previous section.
    • We do need a link for Kootenay Ice, however.
    • Checked for and removed redundant wikilinks from each section, linked Kootenay in recent years section.
    • Community impact: Comma after "southern Alberta schools" in second paragraph.
    • Fixed.
    • NHL alumni: Comma after "2004 draft by Carolina".
    • Fixed.
    • Move Carolina Hurricanes link from second to first paragraph.
    • Fixed.
    • "Ryan Getzlaf with the Anaheim Ducks." Something looks wrong with this part. Would "of" be better, or does this sentence need some work?
    • In the context of the statement, I think it is correct as stated: "Ryan Getzlaf [won the Stanley Cup] with the Anaheim Ducks".
    • Head coaches: Coach of the year should have the last word capitalized.
    • Fixed x2.
    • "In his time in Calgary" Redundancy. Try "During his time in Calgary".
    • Removed that entire sentence. Even using "during" it remains redundant.
    • "has also served as the team's head coach" Also dosen't work well here.
    • reworded.
    • Awards and honours: Change comma after 2005–06 to a period.
    • fixed.
    That's about it from me. The article is better than I would expect for a junior team, and I look forward to supporting it in the future. Giants2008 (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: My understanding is that the official rendering of Hart's WWF persona was/is Bret "Hit Man" Hart (not Bret "The Hitman" Hart or Bret "Hitman" Hart). AreJay (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not certain of how he was portrayed in his WWF days, but he calls himself "Bret 'the Hitman' Hart" on his own website. I think I will take his word for it.  ;) Resolute 22:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • What makes the following reliable sources.
    • For consistency, either italicise the newspapers or not, but right now they are sometimes italicised and sometimes not in the references
    Sources look good. Links checked out okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hockeydb credits its sources: [79]. I'll look into the consistency of the newspapers in the references. I've likely mixed templates. It will be corrected. Resolute 20:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    hm. It'd be better if they credited the sources on each page, so folks would be able to find the source for each piece of information (kinda like Wikipedia requiring inline cites now). I'll leave this one out for others to decide on, I'm on the fence. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've encountered few reliability problems with hockeydb, and in fact, it is linked to a great many hockey articles, including at least two FA's as sources. However, looking over where I used the link to hockeydb, I realize that it was redundant to another citation set where I used the WHL media guide to get the same information for other seasons. I have replaced the hockeydb refs with the media guide ones to condense the references. So this point is now moot.  ;) Resolute 21:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've gone through the citations and resolved some inconsistencies with my usage of the work and publisher parameters. The only thing now italicized in the citations are book titles. Resolute 21:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just fixed most of the italics in the citations. --D. Monack | talk 03:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That works too, heh. I just went the wrong way with the parameter. Thanks! Resolute 03:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support — Looks very good. No reason to deny FA status. Maxim(talk) 21:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Support (04:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

    • "However, the name and logo also faced heavy criticism from segments of the public and the business community, with both being panned as negative stereotypes of violence in the sport." - would it read better without the also?
      • removed.
    • "with the surprise resignation of Graham James" - just refer to him using surname?
      • Check that throughout.
        • Changed up the statement you mentioned. There is one other spot where I use Graham James' full name after the first mention, but I believe that "...the spectre of the Graham James scandal..." reads better than "...the spectre of the James scandal..."
    • "18–51–3" - what do these numbers mean? Should say so at least once.
      • Hmmm. I guess being a sports fan, the record seems intuitive to me. The season-by-season section also denotes that a record like 18–51–3 represents wins, losses and ties, respectively. I changed the first mention to "...with a record of 18 wins, 51 losses and three ties...", though I am not certain that is any better, imo.
    • "however, as Calgary lost its second" - they're usually referred to as the Hitmen, be consistent.

    dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Changed the wording of the quoted passage, as it just came off awkward on re-reading. I've interchanged the use of Calgary and the Hitmen throughout, mostly to avoid repeating "the Hitmen" numerous times in the same paragraph. I've made some changes for better consistency, however.

    Support - All my concerns above were addressed, so this article gets a thumbs-up from me. Giants2008 (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment "major junior"? While I guess I know what's meant--of the junior teams, presumably this is one of the more important ones--this phrase is not a good start. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Major-junior is actually the name of that level of hockey. -Djsasso (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. Junior ice hockey in Canada is divided into several levels. The top level is called "Major Junior". After that is "Junior A", "Junior B" and "Junior C". Resolute 15:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK. Perhaps it would be clearer if hyphenated and even capitalized, Major-Junior. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've capitalized it for clarity. Resolute 15:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, no further issues here. Oppose, 1a (prose) and 2a (lead). At the very least, the lead needs expanding and the text needs attention from a thorough copy-editor. A lot of the problems could have been ironed out during a good peer review before bringing the article here.
    Issues resolved. --Laser brain (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I did an initial visual scan of this article, my first thought was that it is too heavy on tables and statistics. This should be mostly prose. For a start, the Awards and Honours table should go. It's sufficient to say that several players have won awards and list a key few in prose. Most of that information belongs in the player articles.
      • The lead needs to be beefed up to more accurately summarize the article. Add some major points in the team history.
      • The prose needs a lot of work. The comma situation is out of control—almost every sentence has unnecessary commas that break up the text and affect readability (ex. "The Hitmen name is derived from Calgary-born wrestler, and original part owner, Bret "The Hitman" Hart."). Many sentences string several statements together and are tough to read (ex. "James organized a group of eighteen investors in the club, which included star National Hockey League players Theoren Fleury and Joe Sakic, along with World Wrestling Federation wrestler Bret Hart, for whom the franchise was named."). --Laser brain (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've gone through the article and broken up numerous sentences with multiple commas. It should read a lot better now, and I certainly encourage anyone who is interested to further review it. I've reworked the lead a little, but I do believe it passes WP:LEAD, and it is comparable to other sport team FAs of similar length. (i.e.: Sydney Roosters and Nottingham Panthers) Resolute 00:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm still going through the rest of the text, but I admit I'm baffled by the "in the club" phrase. What club? --Laser brain (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally, I disagree that the article is too heavy on tables and statistics. Sports, by its nature, lends itself to tables and statistics. Given this, I believe that the weighting of tables is appropriate to the subject and the expectations of the intended audience. As an example of this, this is how a recent edition of the Hitmen game program is formatted:

    1. Feature article
    2. Q & A section with a player
    3. List of WHL teams
    4. List of Hitmen staff
    5. Team schedule (chart)
    6. Second article
    7. List of important dates
    8. List of team record holders
    9. List of players who participated in the World Under 17 Hockey Challenge
    10. Gallery related to the Teddy Bear Toss
    11. List of Hitmen to play in the NHL
    12. List of head coaches
    13. List of award winners
    14. Third article
    15. Roster list
    16. Closing article

    I've used prose to introduce list/chart sections, where appropriate, and personally believe the article will suffer if some of the charts are removed. Resolute 00:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't quite follow how an encyclopedia article compares with a hockey game program. Wikipedia has a general audience, and all articles should be mindful of that. A hockey game program or a sports almanac has a specialized audience. That being said, the only table I suggested removing is Awards and honours. I don't like it in the Panthers article either. --Laser brain (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, a general audience would still be able to understand what information the charts are expressing. As far as NHL articles go, some have had the awards lists moved to child articles. I could do the same here, but given the size of the article at present, such a split did not seem necessary to me. That said, I am willing to remove it and contemplate how best to deal with it. Resolute 02:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I may be on the wrong side of this issue. It's subjective anyway and not a deal-breaker for an FA. --Laser brain (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see both sides as well. I added that section a long time ago because the NHL articles had them, only to remove it from the Calgary Flames article in preparation of it's FAC. Not many other WHL/CHL articles have a similar section either. How best to present it is a tough question to answer, however. I do hope I've addressed your concerns regarding the lead and the state of the prose, however. Resolute 03:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comments pursuant to my 1a opposition above. Still quite rough—I caught several little mistakes that would be caught in peer review or just by a fresh pair of eyes. Please get a fresh copy-editor to go through the whole text. It's really not far off, but I think you may have gotten too close to the text to identify further issues. Examples of issues:
      • "... the violent nature of the look." Seems an awkward phrase. "Look" is too colloquial and we need to explain how the source thought it was violent.
      • Terms like "'Jason Voorhees' style" and "newly formed" should be hyphenated.
      • "The losses lead to serious questions about the viability of the club." As opposed to joking questions?
      • "The Hitmen's second season began with the surprise resignation of James on September 5, 1996, citing 'personal reasons'." "[R]esignation of James" seems labored, and the final clause dangles out there without a clear subject.
      • "... the Hitmen attempted to distance themselves from the disgraced coach." seems a bit POV. Does the source call him "disgraced"? You can clarify that the source referred to him as "disgraced", but you can't just call him disgraced. Also, why are we citing a reprinting of the magazine article instead of the actual article?
      • At first mention of dollar figures, you should specify that you are using the Canadian dollar (I assume you are). --Laser brain (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've revised the statements you mention here, and have asked another Hockey editor with experience with FAs to copy edit the article. Resolute 02:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overall, it was very good, but I've certainly a copyedit throughout. Maxim(talk) 14:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prose: ordinary, but hard to object to in an actionable way.
    • "narrowly edging the Kamloops Blazers for the regular season title"—"Edging out"?
    • Paragraphing a little choppy in places; e.g., "WHL championship".

    But more importantly:

    • Why isn't this nominated for Featured List? There are three biggies in it that seem to take more space than the prose. TONY (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it is an article that incorporates lists and charts. With all due respect, suggesting this should be considered a list rather than an article is silly. Corrected the "edging out" bit, however. Resolute 17:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note; please see my edit summaries, corrections, and particularly in-line comment; I found something I couldn't decipher at all. Please fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed that mistake... see my edit summary for an explanation. Maxim(talk) 00:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, ha :-) (Why don't you just use a real endash (–) instead of an html endash (–)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how to make one without copy-pastnig it from elsewher... is there some sort of alt shortcut, or something? :-) Maxim(talk) 01:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's in the box under your edit screen, first thing after the line that says insert, or you can use keystroke combos (see WP:DASH). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never noticed it in that field... now I know. Thanks! (I'll shut up now, you can feel free to promote the article...) ;-) Maxim(talk) 01:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ALT+0150 accomplishes the same function. Resolute 01:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:47, 7 June 2008 [80].

    Nimrod Expedition[edit]

    This is the fourth and final article of a series dealing with the major British Antarctic expeditions of the early 20th century. Its three predecessors (Discovery Expedition (main page 1st May), Terra Nova Expedition and Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition have all been promoted to FA. I have tried to apply lessons learned from these earlier FAC experiences to the production of this article, which has completed a peer review. Because these expeditions tended to follow a standard formula, and were basically covering the same territory, some of the material in this article will be familar to long-suffering reviewers who have patiently worked through the earlier articles. However, there are sufficient divergences among these stories to make each expedition memorable. The Nimrod Expedition, in particular, stands in sharp contrast to Captain Scott's formal, hierarchical and ultimately disastrous Royal Navy affairs - an adventure on a shoestring that exceeded all expectations. Thank you.

    Self-nominator: Brianboulton (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Sources look good. The few links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Full disclosure, I peer reviewed this article for sourcing. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. You have managed to bring the expedition back to life in a vibrant and exciting article. GrahamColmTalk 22:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Update. The article has been much improved [81] since my initial review.GrahamColmTalk 22:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved GrahamColmTalk 22:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have made a few minor edits to remove a little redundancy. Please double-check the copyright status of the photograph of the expedition hut—I see it is "a scan from a film". This sentence seems ungrammatical, The only possible reason for any doubt about the farthest south was that after 3 January, when the latitude was fixed by observation at 87°22', all further computation was on a dead reckoning basis (course , speed and elapsed time). The use of farthest south as a noun here and below sounds strange to my ears. Apart from this and with regard to Criterion 1, the prose is certainly professional and engaging. GrahamColmTalk 18:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Re picture: It seems that the image was uploaded to Commons by its creator - see User:Mbz1/Mbz1 gallery/Picture Gallery Arctic, Antarctica and Sub-Antarctic Islands - "copies of my old film prints". Its use under GNU seems permissable to me, but someone with a better grasp of image copyright may advise differently. I'll ask.
    • "Farthest south" is often used as a noun in Antarctic accounts, e.g. "Scott's farthest south", "Shackleton's farthest south", etc. Having said that, although I think that the sentence is not ungrammatical, it is clumsy and twisty. I am rewording it into two sentences, and adding a bit for clarity.
    Brianboulton (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose

    • "had been invalided home" — I must admit, I am not too familiar with the word "invalid" as a verb. Answers.com says it's "Chiefly British" — perhaps this can be reworded?
      • It's common enough usage here, and it's in the sources. However, I've reworded: "had been sent home from the Antarctic in 1903 after a health breakdown". That should clarify meaning. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He had not wanted to leave" → "He did not want to leave"?
      • I've removed this phrase - it's not really necessary since Shackleton's disappointment is alluded to later in the next sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know the definition of certain words, such as prospectus, and I'm sure others don't, either as these are not commonly used words; at least, not to me. Could you at least link them, and maybe explain them a bit if possible?
      • I have changed "prospectus" to "programme". The link on prospectus isn't helpful, and I'm not so enamoured of the word as to want to keep it, especialy when it may cause confusion. Until I have further details of the other words that you don't understand, I can't take action on your request, but will respond when able.Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "£17,000" → "GBP£17,000"
      • I've yet to see the GBP£ formulation, or indeed a USD$ formulation, in an article. No doubt they exist, but not commonly. I have linked the first mention of £ in this article. Please tell me if you think this insufficient.
        • I take that back - I've now found US$ on several occasions. So I'll adopt GBP£17,000.

    Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • "(2008 approximate equivalent £850,000)" perhaps "(equivalent to approximately £850,000 in 2008)" to make it easier to read?
      • I agree this is a better wording and have adopted it for the first equivalence. Thereafter I continue to use the short form (2008 = approx. £xxxx). Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    These are only in the first section, also. Gary King (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I assume you will have more to say, later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above are just samples. It is suggested that a thorough copyedit by an involved editor be made. Gary King (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m sorry, I don’t know what you mean by an "involved" editor. Involved in what way? If you mean in the article's production, that's basically me, and I've edited the thing until my eyes hurt. I believe that any article, at whatever state of development, is capable of improvement. However, a general request for further "thorough" copyediting, which suggests serious problems but doesn’t clarify what they are, is not particularly helpful. What, exactly, do you think this new copyedit should be focussing on? You obviously have issues with this article, and I would like to resolve them with you, but I can't do this via a guessing game. If it is largely a question of language, then I need to know the actual words or terms that perplex you, so that I can make some judgement about them. Or about whatever else it is that you think needs improving. I don't mind how lengthy the list is, as long as it's actionable in some way. (And if you can say anything positive about the article, so much the better.) Brianboulton (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant uninvolved, my mistake. I'm going to strikeout for now. Gary King (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments regarding images. I corrected licenses and re-sourced several images. The following issues remain:
      • Image:Sir William Beardmore.jpg: PD-Old is inappropriate, as it's a life of author criterion (the author is not known, so we can't determine PD based on his/her lifetime). Source page says "Sir William Beardmore ... sketched after he was raised to the peerage as Lord Invernairn in 1921" (emphasis added), which is troublesome as 1923, for example, is after 1921 (works published before 1.1.1923 fall to PD). Also, the date is only an assertion of creation, not the date of first publication.
        • So, if I can obtain proof that this was published before 1.1.1923 we can keep, otherwise it has to go? The image is not that important to the article, but I will investigate.
      • Image:Marshallwildshack1909.jpg source claims date of creation, but how can we confirm it was published, not just in existence, before 1.1.1923?
        • This is a rather more important image, and it's somewhat frustrating. The photograph appears in my copy of Shackleton's Heart of the Antarctic, published 1911, which should render it fireproof - or so I thought. But, looking at it just now, I see that in the book the figure on the right is in a marginally different position. So the photograph I have used in the article is not the one in the book, published in 1911. I am now trying to establish when "my" photograph was first published, and alternatively, looking for an image of the photograph in the book which I can upload. It's most tiresome. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have replaced this image. Brianboulton (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The replacement has verifiability issues (WP:IUP). The source link is corrupt (address contains /.../ where, I assume, additional address information should be) and the link is directly to the image itself, not a site on which it is used from which we could glean copyright information. If the image appears in Heart of the Atlantic, providing the bibliographical information would suffice. I didn't see the image in Google Books' 1909 version of Heart of the Atlantic, but I assume I missed it or it was added later in the 1911 edition. I uploaded Image:Northernparty.png and Image:Northernpartyplateau.png as book-cited examples (I realize these depict different people/locations). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am most grateful for your investigations and comments. Of your 2 uploads, the first is the Magnetic Pole party, which can now go into the Northern Party section of the article in place of the marginal glacier photo. I will use the bibliographical information, as you suggest, for the farthest south image. I hope that will settle image issues. Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The huts image (Image:The Historic Hut - Cape Royds.jpg) seems ok, as the claimed author and uploader are the same person. It's perhaps odd that author is scanning it from their own print and that it is B/W when the rest of the series is in color, but those are just curiosities. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support: This is an excellent article that I believe meets all the criteria with the possible exception of the unresolved image questions discussed above. In the interest of full disclosure, I will say that I am a heavily-involved editor who did a peer review of the article on 14 May. I also did a top-to-bottom copyedit today in response to suggestions made in the discussions above. Finetooth (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I enjoyed the article when I peer reviewed it. I found some picky stuff, which was corrected. The finer points of grammar sometimes pass me by, so I can't swear that it's perfect grammatically or spelling wise. Sources are good, but the poor pony! (sniffles). Another good one Brian. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:47, 7 June 2008 [82].

    Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang[edit]

    An article about the Vietnamese Nationalist Party that was active mainly in the early 20th century. Best known for the failed Yen Bai mutiny that attempted to establish a general uprising and independence. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Sources look good. Links checked out fine with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Conditional Support for an engaging, well-written and interesting contribution to the project.

    Issues resolved GrahamColmTalk 05:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As usual, I have made some minor suggestions,[83] and here are some other concerns:

    • The genesis of the VNQDD was formed in the mid 1920s - is the use of genesis and formed tautology? (I hope I've spelt that correctly because I want to use it again later)
    • French labor recruiter - I thought the article was written in Brit. Eng. until I saw this.
    • Although the membership of the perpetrators was unclear, the French authorities attributed the killing to the VNQDD and launched a crackdown, arresting between 300 and 400 of the approximately 1,500 members. I suggest this sentence needs to be turned inside out. The French authorities attributed the killings to the VNQDD, (although the membership of the perpetrators was unclear), and launched a crackdown, arresting......
    • VNQDD forces combined with a mutineering by Vietnamese troops in the French colonial army, attempting to spark a widespread revolt against - the structure of this sentence poor.
    • The aims of the business were to achieve commercial success and promote revolutionary means of gaining Vietnamese independence. - I don't like the promote revolutionary means but I can't think of how to rephrase it.
    • There was considerable debate over the platform and ideology of the party. - Is there tautology here or does platform and ideology mean two different things?
    • Agenda is plural, (but no deal-breaker)
    • There was a problem with Financial Problems, (according to my notes), but I might have fixed it in my edit.
    • We have labor again.
    • As a result, Nghiep's faction was driven from the Central Committee. As a result, some sources reported that Nghiep had formed his a breakaway party and began making secret contacts with French authorities.
    • Trials...to try.. more tautology?
    • Oh I see we have labour here.

    I enjoyed reading this article and I look forward to adding my support later. GrahamColmTalk 18:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have made alterations to all of the points raised. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Could we get some more information about the role of the VNQDD's role in post-independence politics? You state that the party is still respected as Vietnam's leading anti-communist organisation, but there isn't any mention of their current activities. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Seconded. Post-1954 activities barely mentioned in article. DHN (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, I've included everything from Hammer, both of them, unless you want me to explain the 1962 bombing in full detail or the 1960 coup. Because the coup trial isn't really considered to be a big deal (trumped up by Diem) and the bombing was more ad-hoc rather than centrally organised. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [84] This is a sample history page. Obviously post-1954, the VNQDD had no army left to do much, whereas in the 1930s-40s they were the 1st-2nd largest group, which is why they aren't much of a factor in the history textbooks. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Could something be said about the so-called "Affair on On Nhu Hau Street"? It appears that the Viet Minh consider it an important case leading to VNQDD's downfall and seemed to have changed some minds (Huynh Thuc Khang) about the role of VNQDD in post-1945 Vietnam. DHN (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll look in Hammer again but I thought I went to the index and included everything under teh VNQDD search. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: An observation: the articles has some 20 redlinks. Isn't it too many for an FA? Arman (Talk) 04:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Redlinks aren't part of the FA criteria. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, red links are not a bad thing; they are to encourage others to write the articles, and they are a natural and desired part of Wiki articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support; the article seems to me to meet all aspects of the criteria, and there is nothing actionable above that is cause of concern. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Resp. to Sandy: yes, but not too many red links, please. There's a point beyond which they degrade the appearance and readability of an article. There's a requirement for a professional standards of formatting.

    Changing to weak opposeSupport Diff since my last comment; nice work.—It would be good to have a thorough copy-editor sift through to ensure that all of the sentences are properly constructed, and the weed out the few remaining obvious glitches. These problems are from the lead, except for the last one, which came very easily from straying into the body of the article.

    • "Beginning in the 1928, the VNQDD began to generate attention ..."—the? How did that happen, and right at the top? "Attract", not "generate".
    • "The mutiny was quickly put down and the retribution was heavy."—the two ideas are very interdependent, yes? "The mutiny was quickly put down, with heavy retribution."? "Along with other leading figures, Hoc was captured and executed."—Reverse the order of the phrases.
    • "Ho soon went back on his word and purged the VNQDD as his communist-dominated Vietminh soon became unchallenged as the dominant anti-colonial militant organisation."—Is the first "as" a because or a while? I really can't tell, and it's a good reason to avoid "as" in that context. Two of them in one sentence is one too many, in any case.
    • "The remnants of the VNQDD fled to the anti-communist south, where they remained until the Fall of Saigon in 1975, which saw the reunification of Vietnam under communist rule." Again, the way the ideas are integrated into a sentence is an issue. Try this: "The remnants of the VNQDD fled to the anti-communist south, where they remained until the Fall of Saigon in 1975 and the reunification of Vietnam under communist rule."
    • "The French colonial authorities were aware of the real purpose of the business and put it under surveillance, without taking further action." Where would the comma be better located? TONY (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Update These have been fixed and Nishkid is doing another review. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tentative support per Tony, but also depending on whether more refs are added. It's always good for a FA to have as many refs as possible, so that nothing can be questioned. A sign of quality as a well-sourced article. Also, would the title include the Vietnamese spelling as well? Khoikhoi 01:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Update If there was only one ref for a paragraph that was because it all came from that ref. I tend to ref anything. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spot-check by request: "Money was needed to set up a commercial enterprise, which would be used as a cover for the revolutionaries to meet and plot, as well as and for raising funds . As such, a; for this purpose, hotel-restaurant named the Vietnam Hotel was opened in September 1928."
    • As plain as possible, please: "The first notable reorganisation of the VNQDD took place was in December"
    • Try to avoid the normally idle "some", and there's confusion as to whether the "scholar-gentry" were part of the landlord and wealthy peasant set: "There were some landlords and wealthy peasants among the membership, but few were of scholar-gentry (mandarin) rank." --> "Among the membership were landlords and wealthy peasants, but few members were of scholar-gentry (mandarin) rank.

    This is one paragraph taken at random from the middle. Needs a good copy-editor to mould into the required professional-standard prose. TONY (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. The prose is decidedly uneven, and often very choppy; it's not always clear how one sentence leads to the next. I've done a bit of copy-editing, but more would be much appreciated. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've now done some more copy-editing, and hope that I've managed to improve the prose. The article's pretty close, I think. I can't really speak to comprehensiveness; the sources are fairly limited in number (are there not more articles available?), and a couple are a little old, but generally they appear solid enough. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hammer and Duiker are still the standards for the French era. The French era doesn't get much attention unfortunately for us. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Ruhrfisch Comments All of my concerns have been addressed and I think the article is interesting and well-written. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have done some copyedits to the article, as requested (please feel free to revert / change any errors I introduced by mistake). Here are a few questions that I had reading and copyediting it:

      • Shouldn't the Origins section identify the French as the colonial power earlier in the section, perhaps in or near the phrase They aimed to promote violent revolution as a means of gaining independence for Vietnam ...
    noted, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Same section Chinese Revolution is a link to the 1949 one, but this is the 1920s - please fix.
    fixed, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Formation section - could even down to copying the KMT's name be made clearer? My understanding is that both names end in "National Party", but it took me a while to figure this out.
    pointed out, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The end of the Initial activities section says ... a VNQDD death squad killed several French officials and Vietnamese collaborators ... but in the Assassination of Bazin section it says The French reacted to the VNQDD's first major attack .... How is Bazin (one death) a major attack, or why were the deaths of several French and Vietnamese minor?
    I just removed the comparison, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Internal split ... section - should the verb "were" be singlular (i.e. "was", faction seems to be singular): In 1929, the VNQDD split when a faction led by Nguyen The Nghiep began to disobey party orders and were [was?] therefore expelled from the Central Committee. or is it ... began to disobey party orders and [its members] were therefore expelled ...?
    singular I think, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exile in Yunnan section - ... including some followers of Phan Boi Chau who had formed their own Canton-based VNQDD in 1925. Since the Viet Nam based VNQDD was founded in 1927, was it really the first such party (as is claimed earlier in the article)?
    I removed the name of PBC's Canton org, since there were a few different names for this obscure thing. In any case, I changed the top part to "home-grown", weakening the claim made the book. It seems that the book forgot about the activities of Phan Boi Chau in exile before 1920. And I copied it without thinking....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Same section - since the Second World War started at different times for different countries, would it make sense to add a year to The remainder of the VNQDD was paralysed by infighting and began losing political relevance, with only moderate activity until the outbreak of World War II.[3] (probably would say it started in 1937 in China?)
    noted, pointed out that they fired up after the chaos of the Japanese invasion of VN. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the Post-independence section, I agree that there should be something about what the VNQDD did between 1963 (Diem's death) and 1973 (Fall of Saigon). The website cited above [85] says they were in the political opposition mostly and that party members fought the Communists during the war - even a sentence or two on this would help.
    noted, I pointed out there were many VNQDD in the ARVN. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am close to supporting - hope my copyedits helped. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, great work as always --Laser brain (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Comment. Leaning toward supporting—I fixed a few issues as I was reading but one thing confused me. In the "Formation" heading you state that the VNQDD mostly consisted of teachers, government employees, and non-commissioned officers but few workers or peasants. In the "Initial activities" heading, you write that French intelligence had the members as students, merchants, and bureaucrats. You then outright state that the group included landlords and peasants. These seem at odds with each other.[reply]
      • Are you trying to illustrate that the French had their facts wrong?
    Well they were from the same book, but the author didn't explicitly designate the intelligence as being wrong, although he made a statement that is not in accordance with the intelligence. So I htink implicitly yes, although I am not going to make it explicit. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are we supposed to assume that what the intelligence said was correct?
    Per above, simply as their analysis, I think. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is the second statement after the intelligence statement ("Among the membership were landlords and wealthy peasants, but few members were of scholar-gentry (mandarin) rank.") supposed to be attributed to the intelligence report also?
    I did this. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    --Laser brain (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Additional comment - question that needs further explanation in the text: "The French reacted to the VNQDD's first major attack by apprehending all the party members they could find ..." How did the French determine that the VNQDD was responsible? --Laser brain (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I clarified that they just attributed it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 4 June 2008 [86].

    Common Treecreeper[edit]

    Self nomination, a bit shorter than usual, but has passed GA. To anticipate possible concerns, (a) this woodland species appears to have no cultural significance anywhere in Europe (b) whilst, like other woodland birds, this species will be taken as prey by species like Sparrowhawk and Tawny Owl (I've even found Treecreeper remains in a Tawny Owl pellet) it's so obvious that nothing I can find specifically refers to Common Treecreeper (c) similarly avian diseases and parasites Jimfbleak (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Issues resolved. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - Problems with prose, fails criteria 1a.

    • The lead alone shows some poor prose, such as "Also known as Eurasian Treecreeper, or (in the British Isles where it is the only member of its genus) just Treecreeper, it is very similar to other treecreepers, having a curved bill, patterned brown upperparts, whitish underparts, and long stiff tail feathers which help it creep up tree trunks." - This is a very long sentence.
    • "All the treecreepers are similar in appearance, being small birds with streaked and spotted brown upperparts, rufous rumps and whitish underparts. They have long decurved bills, and long stiff tail feathers which provide support as they creep up tree trunks looking for insects.[2]" - 'Being' is poor word choice. 'Typically' would probably work better here.
    • "The Common Treecreeper is 12.5 centimetres (5 in) long and weighs 7.0–12.9 grams (0.25–0.46 oz) It has warm brown upperparts intricately patterned with black, buff and white, and a plain brown tail." - After (0.25–0.46 oz), you are missing a period (or, full stop).
    • These are just a few examples, the article needs an entire copyedit throughout by an editor new to the text.
    • Please see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a for addressing prose issues
    • See also Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/Members and Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#General_copyediting for lists of copyeditors who can help you.

    — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've rewritten the introduction to address the concerns there. The other issues have been fixed by GrahamColm and Casliber for which much thanks. "Typically" incidentally is not appropriate, since it implies that there are exceptions.

    Support. I disagree, this is an engaging and well-written article. I have made some very minor edits but, apart from which, I found no problems with the prose except: The Common Treecreeper is non-migratory in west and south of its breeding range, however some northern birds move south in winter, and high-altitude breeders may descend to a lower level. - which needs some attention. Some may express concern that the citations are few, so be prepared to defend this. I suggest you double check the copyright status of the original Commons images. Don't assume that they are free simply because they are there. Thanks and well done - a damn good read. GrahamColmTalk 12:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • thanks for the constructive edits and comment. I've now fixed migration. I have 26 journal articles I could use if necessary, but the content is, unsurprisingly, mostly covered in Harrap's major book on this group. However, if the number, rather than the content, of references becomes an issue, I can just replace some of the Harrap refs with the primary research papers (interestingly, another editor said it's better to use books than the papers where possible). Good idea wrt the images. The originals for the birds are GFDL, the tree is PD, and the ant is "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 License", which I think is OK. If not, the image is not essential. Jimfbleak (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Available books and articles if more refs needed, as per above.

    Suorsa, P. et al. (2005) Thresholds in selection of breeding habitat by the Eurasian treecreeper (Certhia familiaris). Biological Conservation 121: 443 - 452. Suorsa, P. et al. (2004) Effects of forest patch size on physiological stress and immunocompetence in an area-sensitive passerine, the Eurasian treecreeper (Certhia familiaris): an experiment. Proceedings of the Royal Society - Series B 271: 435 - 440.

    Huhta, E. et al. (2004) Forest Fragmentation Increases Nest Predation in the Eurasian Treecreeper. Conservation Biology 18: 148 - 155.

    Adamik, P. & Kornan, M. (2004) Foraging ecology of two bark foraging passerine birds in an old-growth temperate forest. Ornis Fennica 81: 13 - 22. Huhta, E. et al. (2003) Habitat-related nest predation effect on the breeding success of the Eurasian treecreeper. Ecoscience 10: 283 - 288. Suorsa, P. et al. (2003) Forest fragmentation is associated with primary brood sex ratio in the treecreeper (Certhia familiaris). Proceedings of the Royal Society - Series B 270: 2215 - 2222. Jantti, A. et al. (2003) Nest defence of Eurasian treecreeper Certhia familiaris against the Great Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos major: only one parent is needed. Ornis Fennica 80: 31 - 37. Enemar, A. (2001) Weights of yolk body and hatchling in relation to the egg weight in the treecreeper Certhia familiaris. Ornis Svecica 11: 147 - 154.

    Jantti, A. et al. (2001) Prey depletion by the foraging of the Eurasian treecreeper, Certhia familiaris, on tree-trunk arthropods. Oecologia 128: 488 - 491. Osiejuk, T.S. & Kuczynski, L. (2000) Song functions and territoriality in Eurasian Treecreeper Certhia familiaris and Short-toed Treecreeper Certhia brachydactyla. Acta Ornithologica 35: 109 - 116.

    Aho, T. et al. (1999) Reproductive success of Eurasian treecreepers, Certhia familiaris, lower in territories with wood ants. Ecology 80: 998 - 1007. Osiejuk, T.S. (1998) Correlates of creeping speed variability in two species of Treecreepers. Condor 100: 174 - 177.

    Enemar, A. (1997) The egg size variation of the treecreeper Certhia familiaris in south-western Sweden. Ornis Svecica 7: 107 - 120.

    Aho, T. et al. (1997) Behavioural responses of Eurasian treecreepers, Certhia familiaris, to competition with ants. Animal Behaviour 54: 1283 - 1290. Gil, D. (1997) Increased response of the short-toed treecreeper Certhia brachydactyla in sympatry to the playback of the song of the common treecreeper C. familiaris. Ethology 103: 632 - 641. Aho, T. et al. (1997) Effects of male removal on female foraging behavior in the Eurasian treecreeper. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 41: 49 - 53. Kuitunen, M. et al. (1996) Food availability and the male's role in parental care in double-brooded Treecreepers Certhia familiaris. Ibis 138: 638 - 643. Peach, W., Du Feu, C. & McMeeking, J. (1995) Site tenacity and survival rates of wrens Troglodytes troglodytes and treecreepers Certhia familiaris in a Nottinghamshire wood. Ibis 137: 497 - 507. Enemar, A. (1995) Incubation, hatching, and clutch desertion of the treecreeper Certhia familiaris in south-western Sweden. Ornis Svecica 5: 111 - 124.

    Arevalo, J.E. & Gosler, A.G. (1994) The behaviour of treecreepers Certhia familiaris in mixed-species flocks in winter. Bird Study 41: 1 - 6. Kuitunen, M. & Aleknonis, A. (1992) Nest predation and breeding success in common treecreepers nesting in boxes and natural cavities. Ornis Fennica 69: 7 - 12.

    Enemar, A. (1992) Laying and clutch size of the treecreeper Certhia familiaris in south-western Sweden. Ornis Svecica 2: 93 - 102.

    Suhonen, J. & Kuitunen, M. (1991) Intersexual foraging niche differentiation within the breeding pair in the common treecreeper Certhia familiaris. Ornis Scandinavica 22: 313 - 318.

    Hogstad, O. (1990) Winter territoriality and the advantages of social foraging in the treecreeper Certhia familiaris. Cinclus 13: 57 - 64.

    Kuitunen, M. (1989) Food supply and reproduction in the common treecreeper (Certhia familiaris). Annales Zoologici Fennici 26: 25 - 33. Norberg, R.A. (1986) Treecreeper climbing: mechanics, energetics, and structural adaptations. Ornis Scandinavica 17: 191 - 209.

    Laurent, J.-L. (1984) Flocking by tits, goldcrests, firecrests and treecreepers during autumn and winter in the Alpes-Maritimes department of France, and their behaviour in searching food. Alauda 52: 126 - 144.


    Comments Sources look good, links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Comments just a couple of small things (Moral or otherwise) I disclose that I am a member of wikiproject birds, but I hadn't seen this article before FAC...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Its song is the best distinction from the very similar Short-toed Treecreeper which shares much of its European range. - scans oddly for me. Distinction I think of now in terms of university grades, how about "It can be most easily distinguished from the very similar Short-toed Treecreeper, which shares much of its European range, by its song" or "Its song is the key to distinguishing it from the very similar Short-toed Treecreeper which shares much of its European range" or something along those lines...(I know..I'm being really nitpicky but the article is good :))
    reworded as per comment
    The Brown Creeper has sometimes been considered to be a subspecies of Common Treecreeper, but has closer similarities to Short-toed Treecreeper, -'affinity' for 'similarities' here?
    reworded as per comment
    It is common through much of its range, but in the northernmost areas it is rare or local, - I guess 'local' here is 'localized' as in occurring in small pockets?
    reworded, removed localised, since meaning conveyed by rare. Thanks for the constructive suggestions, jimfbleak (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Image:Treecreepermap.png: image should provide a source for the range information. Also, this really is a terrible image (blurry map and disorderly, imprecise coloration - done in MS paint?). Given that featured articles are required to "exemplif[y] our very best work", this image does not appear appropiate. Please consider a visit to the graphics lab (I don't know their turn around times) or, if the range source is online or could be provided, I'd be willing to make an alternative version. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources added -AFAIK, the map doesn't exist on-line. The range map is as accurate as these things ever are. The outline is from WP:MAPS, and seems to be all there is available for free use. The mapping is done with what I've got available, which doesn't include professional software or skills. I don't think a map is a requirement for FA - see Osprey and Cattle Egret, so is it best to just delete it? jimfbleak (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is better than no map. We could ask around for some other map drawers. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone is prepared to take it on, I could email scans of the BWP and Harrap maps jimfbleak (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, despite the fact that I wish I had a "rufous rump". I read the article earlier in the day and wanted to read it again. I went to lunch and told my partner I read this article, and when she quizzed me on it, I was able to tell her so much about the common treecreeper I stopped mid-recitation and realized I was yammering on about a bird I had never seen. --Moni3 (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks, it's a nice little bird, but unlikely to get to Florida. Your partner would be even more concerned if you did have a rufous rump (: jimfbleak (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 4 June 2008 [87].

    White-winged Fairy-wren[edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it is on par with other bird Featured Articles with respect to comprehensiveness and prose. I am keeping my fingers crossed for another image or two but there is little I can do if permission is not given, thus I do not see it as a deal-breaker. All comments and suggestions much appreciated into how I can improve this article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I am a member of the birds project, but not seen or edited this article prior to today.

    • The White-winged Fairy-wren (Malurus leucopterus) is a species of passerine bird in the Maluridae family. It is endemic to the dryer parts of central Australia, stretching from central Queensland and South Australia across to Western Australia, and is part of the large order of passerines. Passerine repeated (oops. missed that)
    • The back region between the shoulders is in fact bare, with feathers arising from the shoulder (scapular) region and sweeping inwards in differing patterns; this had confused early naturalists into describing two species this seems a bit detached from former mention of back (changed to "this had confused early naturalists into describing both a white-backed and a blue-backed species" i.e. the parting of the feathers had confused experts into thinking there were two species of different plumage. clearer?)
    • Phylogenetic -link or gloss (linked. thanks Graham)
    • least concern should this be capped? (either that or italicised. done)
    • closer in distance = "closer" or "nearer" (well spotted. nearer it is)
    • Each clan has a specified area of land that all members contribute to foraging from and defending—although these orders may vary year to year. What orders? (I removed the clause as it is self-evident that roles (i.e. orders) will vary from time to time. Too vague as is and adds nothing)
    • Wing-fluttering – does it need the cap? (The book uses single quotes and capitalisation as they are terms coined for specific displays. I was following the convention)
    • ref 1 – retrieval date not linked
    • perhaps the lead could be split as three sentences? jimfbleak (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. As usual, I have made some suggestions, [88], (not all mine). I have a few quibbles:

    Issues resolved GrahamColmTalk 22:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The back region between the shoulders is in fact bare, with feathers arising from the shoulder (scapular) region and sweeping inwards in differing patterns; this had confused early naturalists into describing both a white-backed and a blue-backed species. - This is a long, can we have two sentences? (easy. no problem)
    2. it makes up a phylogenetic clade sister to the White-shouldered Fairy-wren... - Is sister a technical term? sort of. means 'next closest relative on evolutionary tree' really. I have changed it)
    3. they replace each other across northern Australia and New Guinea - I don't quite get this. (where the range of one birds ends, the other starts. They have minimal overlap - hence depending on which direction one travels in one replaces the other. If I add the adverb 'geographically', does that clarify it enough? Otherwise I am open to ideas)
    4. It was previously classified as a member of the old world flycatcher family Muscicapidae[12][13] and later as a member of the warbler family Sylviidae[14] before being placed in the newly recognised Maluridae in 1975. - I think a comma or two might help here. (done. well spotted. I coulda sworn they were there before.... :) )
    5. Least Concern - does this need defining? (I've wikied this jimfbleak (talk)
    6. At present, there are three possible situations from which the three races of White-winged Fairy-wren could have evolved. - Is situations the best word? (reworded to 'there are three theories as to how the three races..')
    7. What is a reel? (defined on Reel (disambiguation) and linked)
    8. M. l. leucopterus inhabits similar habitats on Dirk Hartog Island and M. l. edouardi does the same on Barrow Island. This might need some non-breaking spaces to stop the species names wrapping. (done)
    9. extra pair copulations - Is there a less cumbersome way of saying this? (reworded to 'While petal-carrying outside of clan territories strongly suggests mating with other females is occurring')
    This is a comprehensive, well-written and engaging article. It would benefit from the addition of more illustrations, but I don't think this should prevent FA. GrahamColmTalk 14:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OpposeSupport—the writing needs work. But it's the type of writing that will scrub up very nicely indeed with one to two hours' work by a copy-editor. Otherwise there are attractive things about this piece. These examples of glitches come from the lead alone. The whole article needs treatment.

    • "A white-winged fairy [that] may be sexually promiscuous and each partner may mate with other individuals"? I'm shocked; but seriously, the last eight words puzzle me after "sexually promiscuous".
    • The old noun plus -ing problem: "it exhibits marked sexual dimorphism with one or more males of a social group adopting brightly coloured plumage during the breeding season". It's not grammatical; please see these exercises in fixing it. Here, I think ", in which ... adopt ...". There's another one in the lead, too: "Three subspecies are recognised, with one occurring ..."—Try a colon plus "one occurs ...". Can you audit for this construction throughout? (they seem to have been done now. everyone is chipping in...)Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... the male. The male ..."
    • "light-blue" and "bright-blue" as double adjectives, certainly in AusEng. (erm, okay then)Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unclear causality: "As a result,"—the "small, inconspicuous" bit I guess is equated with the "sandy-brown" colour of the females? The reader has to work hard there. But just why their accompaniment by one blue older male results from a previously stated fact I can't fathom. TONY (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Reworded to "Younger, but sexually mature, males are almost indistinguishable from females and are the commonest breeding males. Thus a troop of White-winged Fairy-wrens seen in spring and summer comprises a brightly coloured older male accompanied by a number of small, inconspicuous brown birds, many of which are actually males" - initially folks thought all the brown birds were female, and hence these type of birds were called mormon wrens) - better?
    • That's a great looking range map. --JayHenry (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC) (har har) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments a lot of interesting material but may need some reorganization. The Threats section seems out of place within Behaviour with only the distraction displays fitting in. Shyamal (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (I had combined predators, threats and threat-avoiding displays in a threats section. Shall I just leave it in a big behaviour section, or relabel predators and threats?)
    I guess the predators and threats should go into a new top level section - population and status or suchlike, the distraction displays can stay under behaviour or possibly just dealt in the breeding part since the rodent run is associated with nesting. Shyamal (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I have reorganized but left as a subheading, I figured if prey is a subheadding then predators could be too. I do like hierarchies of headings. No hugely fussed and I don't mind if you want to take the extra = off to make a full heading really. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both island subspecies are nearer in distance to mainland populations of leuconotus than to each other; - The structure of the subsequent work suggests that the idea is to say that the islands are (physically/geographically) closer to the mainland than to each other and that they were connected to the mainland during glacial times and therefore that the populations are genetically closer to the mainland populations than to each other. I am not sure if that is what is meant and if it is coming through clearly due to the use of distance in both geographic and evolutionary senses. Shyamal (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have made some copyedits to fix this. Hope there is no mutation in meaning. Shyamal (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. meaning remains unmutated. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I have done a Google scholar check and am satisfied that most of the journal references have been reviewed and incorporated into the article to make it comprehensive and well referenced. Prose is good while images, video and audio media can be hoped for in the future. Shyamal (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a request in for images and am awating written replies. One can only hope...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Current ref 5 "Rowley & Russell (Families of the World) is lacking a publisher and publication date, could these be provided, oh, wait, I see it's finally given in ref 30. Perhaps you could move that to a "references section" for the used-more-than-once refs? Same for the Schodde ref?
    Sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Both monographs from which multiple page refs were taken are now at bottom. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thanks! All done here! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support- First of all, I am a WikiProject Bird editor, but did not work with this article before a final go-through just before the FAC. All of my issues (outlined on the article's talk page) are now resolved, and I think that the prose is above the level now with the copyediting that has happened since Tony's comment. It is a thorough and complete article, and while more pictures would be nice, there are none available and I don't think that that should prevent the article from becoming an FA. Therefore, I support. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    • "the Maluridae family"? Wouldn't "the family Maluridae" (or "Maluridae, the XXX family") flow better? (done - I'm not fussed whether 'fairy-wren' is left in or out, whichever flows better)
    • "this species has a marked sexual dimorphism" or "this species has marked sexual dimorphism"? (removed 'a' and changed to 'displays', which was the verb used in all my bird books)
    • "The female is sandy-brown with light-blue tail feathers and is smaller than the male, which, in breeding plumage, has a bright-blue body, black bill, and white wings" - I think this would do better split into two sentences, or perhaps "The female is sandy-brown with light-blue tail feathers and is smaller than the male, which has a bright-blue body, black bill, and white wings when in breeding plumage." (duly split, well a semicolon anyway but can easily be a full stop)
    • "Younger, but sexually mature males are almost indistinguishable from females and are often the breeding males"; maybe "Younger sexually mature males are almost indistinguishable from females. These are often the breeding males". (yup, done)
    • "Thus a troop of White-winged Fairy-wrens seen in spring and summer comprises a brightly coloured older male accompanied by small, inconspicuous brown birds, many of which are actually male." I'd say ditch the "Thus"; I think it would read better without it. ('k)
    • "Three subspecies are recognised, one is found on Dirk Hartog Island and another on Barrow Island off the coast of Western Australia" - either "Three subspecies are recognised. One is found on Dirk Hartog Island and another on Barrow Island off the coast of Western Australia" or "Three subspecies are recognised: one on Dirk Hartog Island and another on Barrow Island off the coast of Western Australia". (oops, forgot to mention mainland form there. done anyway)
    • "The White-winged Fairy-wren, which mainly eats insects, is found in heathland and arid scrubland, where low shrubs provide cover" - I don't think "which mainly eats insects" belongs in the middle of a sentence on distribution. (duly splitted)

    Guettarda (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well-spotted. I am happy for input into how I can improve the article :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Some more: Taxonomy

    • the last two paragraphs don't really flow with the first two. The first two paragraphs are historical, and the fourth para starts historical, but the third para is not. The statement that it is in the Maluridae is made (albeit indirectly) in the fourth para, so it doesn't need to be made in the third. I would suggest moving the fourth para up, and then merging the third para into it.
    (moved para 3 past para 4 and changed beginning so it segues nicely.actually works quite well!)
    • Subspecies
    • why "at present"? If there were more subspecies, you should say so. If there is a move to change the number of rank of some groups, say so. Otherwise, "at present" is unnecessary. (there were historically more, but no future plans I know of)

    Evolutionary history:

    • talking about genetic distance and then moving into physical distance is likely to confuse some readers.
    • "There are three theories" - no; three theories have been proposed/published/have attracted much attention.

    Description:

    • I think that "nuptially plumed" either needs to be linked, or you need simpler language. I don't think "nuptially plumed" is accessible to our target readers.
    • "The White-winged Fairy-wren is particularly well adapted to dry environments"? Why "particularly? Relative to what? (ok, removed. Well, to other birds really but agree the 'particularly' is redundant)

    Behaviour:

    • This sentence has too many distinct ideas: "Hopping, with both feet leaving the ground and landing simultaneously, is the usual form of locomotion, though birds may run when performing the rodent-run display" (switched and split)
    • "Clans have 2–4 birds, that typically consist of one brown or partially blue male and a breeding female" - how about "Clans consist of 2–4 birds, typically one brown or partially blue male and a breeding female" (I like it. done)

    Feeding

    • I think the first sentence would be more readable if it were split into two. (into twain it shall be (well almost - I used a semicolon))

    Courtship

    • "and many broods are brought up a by male other than the natural father"; how about "and many broods are brought up a by male who is not their natural father" (done)

    Predators and threats

    • I don't understand this sentence: "Another threat to the birds is from humans; many nests are destroyed during breeding season by human habitation (and even the occasional bird watcher) because the nests are hidden close to the ground and therefore difficult for passers-by to spot"; how is "human habitation" a threat? (by trampling. In fact, that is a useful word which encompasses much of what was in the aforesaid sentence)

    Guettarda (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and support. Guettarda (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I can't believe that Mr. Fungus writes articles about cute creatures. I read it over and I could find only one confusing statement which I fixed. Good article. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • comment the section on vocalizations could use more citations. There are two sources given at the end there. It isn't clear to me which statements in that section are using which for citation. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (there have been two significant published articles on the vocalisations which found similar results (which I have stated at the beginning of the para). Rather than pepper several points with refs from either or both I felt both at the end. I figured it was better this way. If there is a consensus that it should have refs all the way through which will be repeated and sometimes duplicated then I will do it, but it won't be pretty... :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. That's satisfactory as is then. Oh, and just to make it clear support. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The referencing bit can be tricky sometimes, though a long-term solution may be optional visible ones. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a few piddly points

    • I think this bit "The female is sandy-brown with light-blue tail feathers; it is smaller than the male, which, in breeding plumage, has a bright-blue body, black bill, and white wings." would be better split. It starts with the girls and moves on to the boys. (split. good pick up as I had forgotten female bill colour. kept the same order for flow)
    • Under taxonomy it doesn't quite hang together where it says it was called various kinds of Superb Warbler and then says "The White-winged Fairy-wren was originally named the Blue-and-white Wren,". (good pick up. changed as not original per se, just an older name)
    • In "description" you've used "molt" and "moult" in the same sentence. (aagh. US spelling! fixed)
    • Pardon my ignorance, but is "coverts" plural here: "The breeding males' blue plumage, particularly the ear-coverts, is highly iridescent due "? (tricky this. The subject of the sentence is the singular 'plumage', with the plural 'coverts' in a little clause)
    • In behaviour - should Wing-fluttering display be wing-fluttering display? Similarly Rodent run using a cap in the middle of a sentence. (yup. missed those ones)
    • This "parasitism by the Shining Bronze-Cuckoo (C. lucidus) and Black-eared Cuckoo (C. osculans) is rarely recorded.[48]" should probably be a separate sentence.Fainites barley 21:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC) (done)[reply]

    Well that's me easily pleased.

    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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 4 June 2008 [89].

    Madman Muntz[edit]

    Self-nominator. I've put a great deal of work into this article, conformed all references to a singular style, copyedited, and passed GA. I haven't had a peer review, but figured the GA nom and pass would suffice in that regard. :-) Nobody of Consequence (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)
    • I noticed there are some references that appear before punctuation marks; they should appear after them, per WP:CITE.

    Gary King (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Dates in references should also be wikilinked so that they format according to individual user preferences. Gary King (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You just mean actual article dates, right? The cite news/journal/etc. template instructions say accessdates should never be wikilinked. Will link the other dates. It's doing something really weird. I've added all the publishing dates using the ISO format specified in the template instructions (and did not wikilink per those instructions) but only some of them are changing according to my settings. I don't know why it's doing that but I think something is broken in the templates themselves. Never mind, fixed it. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • In infobox, "USA" → "United States"
    • Perhaps give titles to the sections with dates? Such as "Early career" or whatever is suitable.

    Gary King (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 01:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes the following sources reliable?
    • A couple of statements need citations, as they are opinions. I don't claim to have caught them all.
      • "Muntzing" section, second paragraph needs a citation, as "As a result they were usuallly very expensive, which limited their appeal to the general consumer market." is opinion.
      • Muntz Jet first paragraph needs a citation, as "...attempted to market a new sports car under his own marque, with limited sucess." is opinion
    Other sources look good. Links checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Ealdgyth, I think I fixed the two instances of opinion/OR by revising the sentences themselves. I'll try to find sources tonight if they're still no good. Regarding the ce.org source, it's Muntz' profile page from the Consumer Electronics Association (a major association in the consumer electronics industry, not a blog or someone's personal website). If this is a questionable source I can probably replace it with others, but why would it be considered questionable? (I'm not trying to be a pain, I really do want to know.) Kind regards! Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mainly I'm questioning it because it doesn't give its sources and it's on the CEA site. CEA isn't exactly a biographical organization, so while the site probably isn't strictly unreliable, it's very borderline. A better source would be either a written biography of the subject, if one exists. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'll move the CEA bio to external links and replace in-text with other sources tonight. Done. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'd be happier with those statments sourced. The article itself is pretty light on sources as it is, won't hurt to hit a few more. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'll give it a shot. Done. I added three more reliable sources for the two sentences in question. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 11:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Looks great so far, but it also looks incomplete. Are you sure there isn't more to say about Madman Muntz?
    • A search on Google Books brings up 28 books with limited preview which you can use as sources: here
    • A search on nyt.com brought up this, which is of use.
    • Another NYT article, partly about Madman Muntz's legacy.
    • Here's some gold dust: a 1963 TIME article which mentions Muntz.
    • TIME's online archive goes back to 1928, so you should be also to find a lot through it here
    • A lot more articles listed [90]: (some are pay per view, unfortunately).

    — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Great stuff! I figured the main thing that could possibly keep me from FA would be the length. I'll see what I can do with the helpful stuff above. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I might also add that you should keep paying attention to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) as you expand the article. I don't like the current section/paragraph layout (doesn't help the flow/readability at all). For example, early years/education should be the first section after the lead, and then the Career sections after that. Keep up the good work! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A suggestion on the talk page said the early life and later years sections were too short and would work better merged together into a section named "biography", which seemed like a good idea to me. Does that help? I was having trouble finding info about his personal life. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Or did you mean that the new way (one biography section) isn't good? I totally restructured the heading levels and added a new main head in the middle. What do you think of this approach? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional comments

    • Okay, I'll work some more this evening, hopefully. Actually, I believe the stores are still in business (or at least there are phone book listings for two Muntz Electronics stores in LA). Will try to dig up more on these stores and will head over to the copyeditors and ask for their help. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's hard to know if there are any "true" Muntz stores left... I find a number of Electronics, Stereo, Audio-Video, etc. stores all over the US in directory listings, but there's no guarantee these aren't just some local store that happens to have had an owner with the last name Muntz. Not sure how I can expand on this section without using dubious info. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copyediting Done, and it looks much better I think. I can't add any more info about the current status of Muntz' stores unfortunately. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 11:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Not many images. Although it's not an requirement, I would appreciate more.
    • {{persondata}} should be used in biographies.
    • There should be a non-breaking space between a number and the units it's measured in.
    • "Earl William "Madman" Muntz (1914–1987),[1] born in Elgin, Illinois, was a merchandiser of cars and consumer electronics from the 1940s until his death in 1987." - the phrase "Born in Elgin, IL" seems extremely random and out-of-place in the middle of that sentence. I'd recommend removal, but it's just a suggestion.
    • "Common opinion at the time dictated that used car salesmen should project a staid image, however Muntz completely rejected this thinking" - runon

    More later. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fixed. I added the persondata template, I think I caught all the spots that needed nbsp, deleted Elgin, IL from the lead sentence, and split the runon into two sentences. I'll have a look around for images, although we may be stuck with fair use stuff. :-/ Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a couple more images. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Conditional support - "fatten it up," and this is a support. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope it looks better to you now. I added quite a bit more, particularly about his car and Stereo-Pak businesses. Hopefully I'll have a slow evening at work and will be able to include more about the stores his children run.Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Couldn't find any more info about the stores after Muntz' death. But the article is now more detailed and complete than it was and has gone through a complete copyedit. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, I reviewed all the recent work and it looks vastly improved. Prose is excellent. --Laser brain (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose I share Wackymacs' concern that this is not comprehensive, even though you have several good sources listed. The later sections are especially light considering this man's considerable legacy. I think some more research and expansion is needed before it's worth scrutinizing the text. I will say, however, that there are some confusions just from reading the lead. For example, you say TV sets and then TV receivers, seemingly referring to the same thing. I'm also not sure why you mention his seven marriages but only list two in the infobox. --Laser brain (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While there are quite a few references (and I'm still working with the ones provided above), many of them contain pretty much the same information: they discuss his various businesses and his oddball TV ad character. I mention seven marriages for factual accuracy because he was married seven times (according to sources), however, I can only find information on two of the marriages (one source seemed to indicate he married 7 times as a promotional gimmick, but I find this dubious and so left it out). I can try to search marriage records to determine who the other 5 wives were and will do so. Will also change TV set to TV receiver throughout. And will try to add more about him and his businesses tonight. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I should be about to fatten this up quite a bit. The books on Google Books are proving extremely helpful! So far I've conformed all instances of TV receiver. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've exhausted my sources for learning anything more about his other 5 marriages, unfortunately. LA country records didn't have anything online that I could access and I'm not sure I can get access to paper copies of his marriage licenses in a timely manner (or at all, as they have a ton of rules). So I deleted the 2 names from the infobox. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note' My internet at home is nonfunctional at the moment, so I'm having to do this from work for a few days. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Back up and running. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. What's practically the opening phrase: surely we normally call a "a merchandiser of cars" a "car salesman"? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still in the first paragraph: "television (TV) commercials." C'mon, do we really need to tell our readers that TV is the abbreviation for television, or even vice versa? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Muntzing" should be (briefly) explained in the lead, not simply wikilinked. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Early years" section seems to take us up to the 1950s. Is this a problem with the level of section heading? The stranded single sentence that would then make up the entirety of that section is somewhat problematic. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general, this article still needs work. But the guy's obviously quite a character, so I hope it can be brought up to FA standard for that reason if none other. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will respond on by one: 1) I believe that if we change it to alter "merchandiser of cars" to "car salesman" it will change the meaning. "Car salesman" is just someone who sells cars, while Muntz owned his own lots. I think "Merchandiser" does a better job of setting him apart in this regard. 2) Perhaps it's not mandatory, however it's common copyediting practice to always spell out first and use an abbreviation afterwards. I feel that doing so here makes the article consistent. This change was made by someone who was asked to copyedit the article (it's been through a couple of thorough copyedits). 3) Why should Muntzing be described in the lead rather than wikilinked? I'm concerned that adding a description would disrupt the (relative) balance of the lead paragraphs 4) I'm not sure I understand your concern with the section headings... The "Early Years" main section does take us through the 1950s. "Audio and Video" begins with an intro that described how he transitioned from his early businesses into other areas. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      1) sounds decidedly awkward as is, and I'm not convinced of the difference; 2) this really does seem unnecessary; 3) beyond the fact that I don't like being forced to click on a wikilink to understand an article (a wikilink should lead me to extra information, not to essential information), in that his invention of "muntzing" is apparently an important aspect of his achievements and a prime indicator of notability, it should be spelled out, however briefly; 4) then I suggest a reworking of the sections, as in most similar articles "early years" is taken to refer to childhood and youth, rather than taking us to the subject's forties. But again, these are really sample issues. I do think the article needs to be looked at again. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) I disagree, I think this sentence is succinct and accurate. A "car salesman" is any old person who sells cars. Muntz was a business owner. Are you really telling me that you can't see the difference between an employee and the business owner? 2) ok, I will remove the parenthetical. 3) Muntzing is actually described in some detail in the section about Muntz TV. I will attempt to add a brief explanation of it. 4) I'm not opposed to changing titles but I would very much rather not start doing a full rework of the sections. They've already been shuffled and reshuffled, rewritten, edited, etc. and I don't see how a total rework would make a difference. I'll try to work with the headings though. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments Support
    • I found it an interesting article. It made me want to learn more about him, and I think the article doesn't really quite give an entire picture of the man. I like that his advertising ploys are described, but there's not much about him behind the camera. I don't quite believe someone as innovative as Muntz, according to the article, was motivated completely by money. Why invent so many things? Why be so creative? Is there nothing more about his early life? His birth date, anything about how he grew up? Someone who craved publicity so much must have more about his childhood.
    • The image of the Muntz Jet - is that a vanity shot?
    • I like the article. I particularly like the potential of an FA on someone like Muntz. Is it possible to answer any of these questions? I would like to support. --Moni3 (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Glad you like it! I wish there was more about his childhood, but I've exhausted all of my reliable sources. A documentary about him is tentatively set for limited release in the late summer and I'm sure it will have all kinds of great stuff about his personal life, etc. But I'm not sure film biopics would fulfill WP:RS and it's not coming out for a couple more months at least. As for your question about the Muntz Jet... I'm not sure what a vanity shot is... someone requested above that I add more photos to the article if possible, and since this was free it seemed like a nice addition. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I read through it again. A vanity shot is a photo of an object with someone's family member in it. As in, here's a famous hill and here's my son! They're not particularly classy. Somewhere down the line someone will probably point out that it's in bad form. I'm not going to oppose based on the image, but have you thought about contacting Muntz's estate to get GNU permission for a better image? --Moni3 (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh okay, I see what you mean. Nope, I don't know who that person in the picture is (I'm actually the one who uploaded it to Commons). I'll just crop them out of it and update it on commons. Fixed, I cropped and uploaded a new version to remove the random middle-aged woman. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm supporting, but I did a very cursory search for information on Muntz and was unable to find anything. If you're in California, you may have access to the California (Or Los Angeles) Historical Society journal. Perhaps a regional advertising magazine. The article at its present state I feel is feature-worthy, but incomplete. I wish there were more about his background. But nonetheless, well done. --Moni3 (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    CommentsSupport—the prose could do with a careful (and quick) run-through; it's mostly OK. But I noticed the following things at random.

    • Lead: Dash after "persona" rather than comma, to signal that it's not all a list. Remove "also"—both of them. "and divorced six times".
    • MOS breach: use sentence, not title case for titles.
    • "would later be copied" --> just "was later copied". And weed out the other "would"s in this sense.
    • "New York-area electronics chain"—ouch. I think you need two hyphens here, if you really need "area" at all.
    • Muntz', I think, needs a final "s".
    • You gonna stubbify one or two of those redlinks?
    • "1/4-inch (1 cm)"—the conversion is very imprecise. Try "0.6 cm", with a non-breaking space.
    • "8mm video"—is that article title linked to a mistake? Surely spaced. Needs piping.
    • "After he died, his children, James and Tee, continued to operate two Muntz stores in Van Nuys and Newhall; the remainder were franchised businesses."—His children were franchised businesses? Relationship between these ideas is unclear.
    • Fair-use justification of the bottom pic: "irreplaceable as the original source (Los Angeles Times), is copyrighted." Um, no, that's not what we mean by "irreplaceable". Can you change it? See NFCC. TONY (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is probably worthy of promotion after polishing. TONY (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ok, I'll have a look tonight unless someone else beats me to it. I did improve the fair use rationale. Fixed all of these. I wasn't sure if I was supposed to use sentence format for book titles as well as newspaper titles, but I did, figuring everything should be consistent. Let me know if that's wrong. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I much prefer sentence case for everything, but I think MOS is OK about title case for books, etc. TONY (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "acceleration of 0 to 50 miles per hour (80 km/h) in 6 seconds"—I'd make it: "acceleration of 0–50 miles an hour (0–80 km/h) in six seconds".
    • Why the split lines for "Communist Party? / "[refs]
    • Space before ellipsis dots unless end of sentence ...

    TONY (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fixed the mph/kph conversion and the ellipsis spacing. I'm confused about the Communist Party split lines comment ... please clarify? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure, but I think the problem is that you have one quotation, but two references; which is the source for that quotation? (If that's not Tony's problem, it is mine.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both refs support the same quote. I figured a claim that he showed interest in joining the communist party for publicity reasons could potentially be controversial, so I provided two references to hopefully alleviate any concerns folks may have. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I'm concerned (and I recognize that this may also be a pet peeve) one reliable source is always enough, so long as other sources don't contradict it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments. Heh, am I being more of a stickler on prose than Tony, eh? Anyhow, I think the article could still do with a run through. To see the kinds of things I'd suggest, look at my own recent copy-editing. What's more, I notice that hardly any of the references have page numbers. This seems like a serious lapse. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead has a paragraph on his wives and celebrity friends, but there's nothing of the sort in the article itself. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pretty much all of the book refs were found in a google books search, so I can probably get the page numbers tonight or in the next couple days. As for the paragraph about his wives and celebrity friends, this is one of those areas that I haven't been able to expand on. Originally (ages ago), this was in the body of the article in a section about his personal life. But that section was really small and during the GA review, it was suggested that I increase the size of what was then a pretty small lead with the smaller bits in the body that I couldn't expand on. The refs say who two of his 7 wives were, that Phyllis Diller was his girlfriend at one point, and that he was friends with the other famous people but I haven't been able to find any greater details about any of these relationships. I haven't even been able to learn who his other 5 wives were. :-( Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My understanding of WP:LEAD is that there shouldn't be anything there that isn't in the body, and vice versa. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see what you mean. It seems to suggest that the lead should summarize the article, provide a concise overview, and not tease readers with info that isn't expanded on in the article. However, I'd argue for keeping the info in the lead as-is for a couple reasons: 1) removing it entirely would shorten the lead quite a bit and earlier issues with the article included a too-short lead, 2) While the guideline does say the lead "shouldn't" tease readers, it doesn't explicitly prohibit it, and in addition, the guideline lead box states that occasional exceptions can be made. Logically, of course, we should learn more about Muntz's personal life and add a section the the article body. I can give this another try, or if there's some way to incorporate it into the body with a shortened lead sentence I'd be open to that too but I don't want to "Muntz" this article too much. :-/ I'll see what I can do about it tonight. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 4 June 2008 [91].

    Baby Boy (song)[edit]

    previous FAC (00:57, 28 April 2008)


    Self-nominator I asked the user who opposed this article's previous FAC to conduct a copy edit and its now ready. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Issues resolved. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak Oppose - It looks good, but the prose is still not brilliant. I can see misuse of commas throughout, and I even found a spelling error. Please get another copyeditor to go through it. Lists of copeditors can be found at: Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members. Also, is the fair use image in the music video section really needed? The article already has many good photographs. References look good, links are fine. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If that makes you oppose, I'll try to sift through the article and try to contact someone to copy edit. I think i need to capture the best image for the video for it to pass. --Efe (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops! I'll remove the image. --Efe (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Still opposing. There are still commas everywhere I look, for no good reason. For example, " "Baby Boy" is a hybrid of R&B and dancehall, and also features influences from reggae." - Why the comma here? There are similar examples all the way throughout. The unnecessary music video picture is still there. Now that I think about it...you've never written R&B in the full (which you should, on the first instance). And isn't it contemporary R&B, not just R&B? I still think this needs a copyedit from someone new to the text. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You have only addressed what I mentioned, please get a copyeditor new to the text involved - they will help polish and make the prose "brilliant". See the links of copyeditors I posted above earlier. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For non-copy editors like me, or should I say, non-English native, how do you gauge "brilliant"? --Efe (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For me, a prose becomes brilliant when it has no misused punctuations, clear language, correct grammr, no awkward passages, and the like. If you can spot some of them in the article, I welcome you to highlight it here so that I can fix them. Thank you very much. --Efe (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked a copy editor already. --Efe (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not many edits have been made from editors other than yourself since 27th May - can you get someone else involved for copyediting? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - Looks much better now that it has been copyedited. And in response to your earlier comment on someone's Talk page, Efe, I am not hard to please - I just like the prose to be excellent as it should be for a featured article. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks man. I left a response in your talk page. --Efe (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Why is this so important that it need s mention in the lead? "The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers recognized the British record company EMI at the 2005 Pop Music Awards as Publisher of the Year, for publishing "Baby Boy" as well as other songs recorded by contemporary artists." An award for the record label isn't important for the song.

    I'll remove that. --Efe (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The lead needs to discuss more about the song's music and the lawsuit. If Sheet Music Plus isn't even notable by Wikipedia standards, what makes it a reliable source? indopug (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mentioned about the lawsuit. The sheet music is published by Hal Leonard Corporation, so I believe its reliable. --Efe (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • "United States singer-songwriter Jennifer Armour filed in 2005 a copyright infringement" - needs reordering, start with the year and go from there...
      • Fixed to: "In 2005, United States..." --Efe (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and rapper-hip hop artist and Knowles' long-time boyfriend Jay-Z." - lots of "and"... my rule of thumb is to not use the word more than once in a sentence
      • Fixed to "...and Knowles' long-time boyfriend rapper-hip hop artist Jay-Z." Is it awkward? Actually, its ok to use "and" twice but it depends on the phrasing. --Efe (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "But once the track was done, Knowles still thought something was missing" - it wouldn't really be "done" then...reword/clarify
      • Added word: "But once the track was supposedly done..." Is that correct? --Efe (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "both releases varied in content." - "the releases..." would sound better I think
    • "complimented the song as one of the "high-profile collaborations" in Dangerously in Love" - this is more a statement of fact than a compliment...nothing else to say?
      • It is unacceptable as a review? "High-profile" is kinda opinion. --Efe (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "2003 MTV VMA" - what's that? (next para too)
    • The image in the Copyright infringement lawsuit section isn't really relevant...
      • Fixed caption. Please check. --Efe (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "with sales of 70,000 units" - you should say in excess of or something like that; it could have sold between 70K and 140K and gotten platinum
    • No music video image?

    dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I requested that the music video image be removed because it is was copyrighted material, and I do not think a fair use rationale can be justified when the article is already well illustrated with free images. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 11:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    *nods* They're usually seen in song FAs but I see your point. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Yes, it's a book, but the telling phrase here in the Google review is "tell-all book" and it's a publisher I've never heard of. Google search on the publisher reveals they are probably reliable. It's also classified as a "Juvenile" book. While I won't say it's unreliable, it might be able to be replaced with something better. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't find any source that tell the same information. --Efe (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Given what it's sourcing, it's probably reliable and I've struck it. Is the other one still being used? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yah. Its still there. I cant access the site now; the connection got awry. Any strong reason for me to remove it? Or can find any "about us" in there site that suggests negative impression? Thank you. --Efe (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The main problem is it looks like a personal or fan site. Granted the information isn't exactly controversial, but it is going to what appears to be a personal site. This seems to bear out the "fan site" impression, it says "... it builds on our legacy as the #1 fan site for MTV's TRL, and it reflects the community that keeps the site alive to this day." Ealdgyth - Talk 01:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does that fail against WP:RS? Is the sourced content very controversial? Am not expert on this so Im depending on you. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to think it fails RS. However, if you want a second opinion (and I won't be at all offended if you do) go ahead and ask about it on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, Thanks for the link. --Efe (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments taken from my talk page
    • What does it mean that the tour "began from late 2003 to early 2004"? It can only begin at one point in time, did it last this long?
    • There's an inconsistency between "Murder She Wrote" and "Murder He Wrote". This may not be wrong, but it needs clarification.
      • Its the former. Remove one sentence there. --Efe (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under "Chart performance": "attained more and immediate commercial success than". This makes no sense to me at all.
      • Ahm, it has sense to me. How can I reword it? Any suggestion? --Efe (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Description of the video does not require sourcing, as the video is the source. Still WP:POV terms like "footage designed to have sex appeal"/"Knowles tosses herself sensually" should be avoided.
    • In the same section: "Scenes of Knowles and Sean Paul are separate." If the two artists do not appear together, I assume this is because they shot the video at different times, perhaps even at different locations. Can you find sources for this?
      • No. But its in the video. There is no scene where two is present. They always have different scenes. Like Knowles with a man; Sean with girls. --Efe (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Good luck! Lampman Talk to me! 13:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Nice article overall but still needs some fine-tuning. Points in the first few sections:
    • "The track was produced by Knowles and Storch, and was released on October 14, 2003" - second "was" probably not necessary.
    Removed. --Efe (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The case, however, was dismissed the following year in favor to the defendants." - "however" not contradicting anything
    Removed too. --Efe (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whole of "Background and writing" is a bit clumsy and occasionally seems overly informal ("something was missing", "delighted") although that may be hard to get around. I think it should be "was to add vocals"; the phrase "whose musical approach she admired" jars with me slightly (possibly a personal thing); "Knowles talked to him by phone for possible collaboration" does the same (should it be "about a possible collaboration"?).
    Is "whose musical approach she admired" tends to be POVic? Knowles say it in a source. Anyway, Ill try to change it. --Efe (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "According to Roger Friedman of FOX News" - that statement does not suggest he has the expertise or credentials to comment; does he? Is he a music journalist? If so, it would be better to say that than simply "of FOX News".
    Removing the name. --Efe (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "sequel of sort" - it's quoted, but we have no idea who sees it as that? The artists, the journalists, the public?
    The artist? Is it better to add his name? --Efe (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the releases varied in content" - how and why? Is it worth mentioning at all?
    Amh, this part has been fixed so many times. Am removing it. --Efe (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "which was released in 2003." - "which was" could be removed.
    Removed. --Efe (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    None of this is especially bad, but I think the article can be improved and requires detailed attention all over for words which can be cut, sentences which can be phrased more clearly or concisely, etc. I don't think it's far off though. Trebor (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking pretty good since the copyedit. Quick points: "In the following scene, Knowles is seen on a bed tossing herself" - um, in the UK tossing can refer to something else which I'm assuming you don't mean...might be worth rephrasing. And the first sentence of "Chart performance" (which has a lot of commas - maybe split it) says the song "attained more and immediate commercial success than "Crazy in Love"" - the "immediate" doesn't really make sense. Did it receive more commercial success, more immediate commercial success, or something else? Trebor (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that alarmed me too (!) The chart performance sentence is fixed, I think. Ceoil (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments
    • toast? (had to check the link) Its kinda obcure for those of this who don't listen to modern Pop/Hip-hop.
      • But it would be ridiculous as well if I will define it right after the word. Unlike establishing Madonna, for instance, as an American pop singer, giving definition to toasting like ..toasting, a kind of blah blad bladh... is not good. I believe. --Efe (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why not just remove it? "a toast by" in the lead can go I think, and when you mention it later, you can describe it. indopug (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does there need to be small text in the Track listing? It makes me squint, while having no obvious positives.
        • I think its fine as is; contains good info. Ceoil (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I meant, remove the small tags, dioid it myself. indopug (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • No policy in Wikipedia that says it should be like this and like that. But to please you, I will not revert it. Its the same, though. --Efe (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surprisingly I see MoS issues: MTV News, while there is both Slant Magazine and Slant Magazine.
      • Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No! I dont see any MTV News formatted in italics. Is Slant a magazine? Go to the page; its not italicized. But if its really a magazine, I dont know why its left unitalicized. --Efe (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "who is behind Knowles' "Crazy in Love" video" Huh? Is that even necessary? (I read it literally the first time, and it was quite ridiculous)
    • "Parts of the video were captured in a house with different rooms"
    • "On a bed in the following scene, Knowles tosses herself" The construction reminds me of Shakespeare, or is it Yoda?
      • Very strange indeed. Needs to be clarified. Ceoil (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not the one who add that word. I believe he was a copyeditor so I left that as is...until you came. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No get rid of it as fast as you can. See cmt from trebor above....eek. Ceoil (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does that chart performance need to be so huge? It is very dry and boring: it charted here, here , and here, and there too. And all the information is sufficiently covered by the chart tables below. Honestly, I don't see anybody reading the section with interest (if at all); whittle it down to a paragraph and add it to the Reception section.
    • The recption section is meant for for magazines saying if the song is good or bad and why. "Lisa Verrico of the daily US newspaper The Times called the song a "Latino-tinged collaboration ... set to clicky beats that sound like castanets"" is just a description of the music. Further, "called the song" is poor wording in this case.
    • The lead suffers from proseline.
    • OK, not exactly "proseline" a bunch of disconnected sentences that hardly bring out whatever is unique about the song.

    Needs much copy-editing, indopug (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Issues resolved. — JD554 (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "entering the top ten in most countries" in the lead section and "peaking inside the top ten on most charts" in
    • Sorry, I should have been clearer. What I mean is that there are a lot of countries and is it really known that the song reached the Top 10 in most of them? If it's not I would suggest "many" instead of "most", or something to that effect. --JD554 (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "Chart performance". Are you sure? There are an awful lot of countries and indeed charts. You also say "In most European countries" but then only list 12 in the charts section (there are approximately 50 countries according to Europe).

    • 12 not enough> Do you want a list of all? 'Most' seems sufficient. Ceoil (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I just want reassuring that it is actually known that it reached the Top 10 in at least 26 countries in Europe. --JD554 (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Says "many" now. I think 12 covers that. Ceoil (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in August 7 to 8 in 2003" should on "on August 7 and 8 2003"
    • Given the The Guardian's reputation for spelling mistakes, I'm quite amused that you've spelt it "Guardin" in reference #22.
    • All Music Guide in references #10 and #42 should be Allmusic.
    • The infobox should only contain the earliest know release date (the Canada one?)
    • The infobox now says released on 9 September 2003 but article says "It was released as a CD in Canada on 4 May 2003". --JD554 (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with indopug's comments about "toasting". I keep imagining Sean Paul saying "here's to you" before drinking a glass of wine. Maybe I'm just too old!
    • I'm not pushing this point but now I have an image of him drinking Red Stripe! ;) --JD554 (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha..There's an image! How would you suggest we rephrase it? Ceoil (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support: I can't think of anything I'm afraid, but it's not a huge issue. --JD554 (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    --JD554 (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Conditional Support Gave this a copy edit, but there are a few issues above that I'm sure Efe will be able to tend to. I think the article is quite comprehensive, and the "Composition and theme" is particularly well done; an area usually sadly lacking in articles of this kind. I'm also impressed by free images, though I do see an About.com. ref which needs to be repaced or removed. As a disclaimer I do love Beyoncé; though I rarely listen to her music. Anyway.... Ceoil (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support now. Well done sir. Ceoil (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Ceoil for the help. --Efe (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Tips hat) Just doin' my job. ;) Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I had issues with this on the previous FAC, mostly about prose. It was uneven then; it is pretty good now. Well done, Efe! :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks sir! I mean Jb. --Efe (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Further: thanks to Ceoil's remarkable copy-editing, the prose is fine indeed. Just two more points:

    • My Chart performances comment above is unaddressed.
      • Its ok. Its been cut and left are important information. --Efe (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe you are referring to the second para. --Efe (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see a lot of mention by the critics about an Indian theme in the music (in the Reception section). This should be mentioned in the Composition section. indopug (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it is covered in this pasage: "Like Knowles' 2004 song, "Naughty Girl", Storch's knowledge on Middle-Eastern music contributes to its Arabic influences". --Efe (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 4 June 2008 [92].

    Zelda Fitzgerald[edit]

    This is my first attempt at a literary FA, so I've been moving slowly through GA and PR where this has been thoughtfully reviewed by Scartol, Brianboulton, Giggaman, and Yllosubmarine. I look forward to addressing whatever weaknesses remain. --JayHenry (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Oppose The majority of the references all came from one source, which is most likely a book or something. One source ain't gonna do it. Try adding different sources. Dabbydabby (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    • They come from five high-quality sources: Zelda_Fitzgerald#References. The only two biographies of Zelda (one that was nominated for a Pulitzer) and are informed and corroborated by readings from three of the leading Fitzgerald scholars in the world: Bruccoli, Bryers, and Prigozy. --JayHenry (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please look in my above message; most of those five sources came from this one: Milford 1970. Even though that source is reliable, I still believe the article needs more sources. Dabbydabby (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      How many sources would you like me to use? And what percentage of citations from the Milford book is acceptable to you? --JayHenry (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, can you try at least 10 different sources? And please, they shouldn't all be books. They should be internet sources, newspapers, whatever reliable source you can think of. Just not one source, or one type of source. If you can do that, I'll change my vote to support. Dabbydabby (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh...first time I've ever encountered anyone opposing based on some arbitrary set number of sources. And since when has relying on book sources become taboo?! For what it's worth, by my count, more than one-third of the footnotes are from a source other than Milford (including, yes, a few non-book sources). BuddingJournalist 00:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Opposing because book sources are used is, well, a bit daft. If anything, book sources should be preferred over newspapers, internet sites, and the like. — Dulcem (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm opposing this because almost all of the book sources are used. It would've been inconvenient for a reader to go find that particular book because very often readers do not have the book right in front of them. Internet sources on the other hand are just a click away. I would believe that the reference list should have a variety of different sources. Dabbydabby (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that this is a valid oppose. I don't mean to offend you, but there is a significant amount of scholarship that exists other than on the internet. Also, we are supposed to find the best possible sources, not the most easily accessible ones. For older subjects, often the best sources are printed and not available on the internet. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dabby, we judge sources on reliability not accessibility. BuddingJournalist 02:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter now; you can delete my oppose vote if you want. (Just don't change it to support.) However, I'm still holding my own opinion. Dabbydabby (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Dabby, I think your point is fair and wouldn't want to see your oppose deleted. I think that I'll be able to find some Web available but highest quality sources. Here are two that I think I could use:
    I'll look for more, but I think these two (in addition to the Web sources already there) will be a worthwhile improvement. --JayHenry (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I checked, and those are indeed reliable internet sources. The only concern I initially wanted to address was its variety of different sources. If you can access book and internet sources (maybe even a visual source too?), I think it would be a great addition to the article. If you ever needed help with formatting the references, you can always come to me for reference. (No pun intended. :D ) [And on a side note, why is everyone calling me Dabby when my username is currently Dabbydabby? (Yes, I'm aware of my usurpation request going on.) ] Dabbydabby (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We call you Dabby because you're our new friend :) You can call me Jay in return, if you'd like. I didn't realize you were actually renaming to Dabby, but it's a good name. --JayHenry (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: I asked Dabby about this on his talk page. He said "I still believe that the article needs more internet sources still, but I see you have been working hard to find reliable sources. I will not change my vote to support; however I crossed out my oppose vote." I'll keep looking to make sources easily available, though I do think it satisfies WP:WIAFA in this regard. --JayHenry (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Nothing I see wrong with using mainly printed sources, considering the lady died in 1948. Personally, I think this is one of the more reliably sourced articles at FAC right now.
    All the sources look fine to me, and the links check out fine also. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • JayHenry, be a dear and fix me a gin fizz you incorrigible harlot I love you. In normal words of the hopelessly boring (and unfortunately sober), this means Support. I am terribly sorry I did not read through this again when you asked me to. I went through and fixed teeny things, but a question or two:
    • With the affair of Jozan, who didn't know Zelda asked for a divorce? That's confusing.
    • Amid the families' bereavement is that the one family? Zelda's? Should that be family's?
    I think it's very well-written, and the quote by Woody Allen made me laugh out loud. Well done. --Moni3 (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, Moni. You're beautiful, like a May fly. My great fear is that I was far too sober when I wrote this article. (Hey, at least I haven't tried to tackle Hunter Thompson yet... that will be a deadly task.) Jozan didn't know she asked for divorce. I'll fix that. I just meant one family. Thanks! --JayHenry (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, my issues at the peer review all addressed, just took a skim now, everything seems dandy. We all love everyone, it seems. Yay. Great article. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: The day Wikipedia disparages printed sources is the day that this librarian packs her pencil case for good! Hrumph. This is a splendid article, one that is a joy to read; well written, a little dramatic here and there, not heartless but not over-involved; I approve. My previous concerns were fixed during the PR, although the Zelda thing still bothers me -- when scholars refer to well known male writers' wives simply by their first names, even when they're the subject of the biography, it's demeaning. The usage is far too familiar, implying that the women are not taken seriously (or at least as seriously as their husbands), which is something I feel that Wikipedia should strive to do as an encyclopedia. Are we ever to rewrite F. Scott's article using Francis or E. A. Poe's using Edgar? Are these equally important "wifey" articles to take second seat to that of their husbands? Oh, well. I'm willing to let my gender-related paranoia rest, however, if only because this is a particularly good article. Well done. María (habla conmigo) 13:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the too-familiar issue, but (now I'm curious) how does one get around referring to Zelda as Fitzgerald and F. Scott as Fitzgerald? Mr. and Mrs. sounds like the society page. I haven't checked the Hilary Clinton article, but when spouses or close relations with the last name are both newsworthy, how do you differentiate? --Moni3 (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Mr. and Mrs." makes me cry a little, but what's wrong with using full names when differentiation is needed? "Zelda Fitzgerald", "Zelda and F. Scott Fitzgerald", "Fitzgerald and her husband, F. Scott"? I don't know if it's important enough to warrant a rewrite, but I think it could be done if consensus is found that just plain "Zelda" seems less encyclopedic. María (habla conmigo) 16:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Zelda and her obsessive drunken ballet dancing may warrant an alteration of the MoS, which would potentially apply to Eleanor Roosevelt, Hilary Clinton, Coretta Scott King, Nancy Reagan, and on and on. I think seeing Zelda Fitzgerald as a full name throughout the article would be tedious to read, but I agree with your issue. I don't know what the alternative is. --Moni3 (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Happyme22 ran into this with the Reagan articles, so you might want to check that out.--Rmky87 (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We have run into at Mary Shelley as well. You might want to take a look at what we did. Certainly I've run into harsh comments by Mary Shelley scholars regarding the use of "Mary" or "Mrs. Shelley" exclusively. "Mary Shelley" or "Shelley" seems to be preferred. We use "Mary" only to differentiate from "Percy" - never "Mary" to differentiate from "Shelley" (i.e. Percy Bysshe Shelley). Awadewit (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey everbody, I really apologize for this but I was unexpectedly away from my computer all day today and am going to be all day tomorrow as well. If you wanted to take a stab at this I would be forever indebted. Please, I really welcome people just jumping in. If not, I'll work on it myself on Wednesday. (Really apologize about this. Very unexpected for me.) --JayHenry (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked for examples where I can do this and attempted to reduce the amount of times she's called Zelda. Again, if you feel this is a weakness, this is one you can fix yourselves. Access to the sources aren't needed and I'm honestly stumped to go any further without introducing severe ambiguity into the text. I'm not willing to confuse the reader and please note that Zelda is always differentiated from Scott--not from Fitzgerald. --JayHenry (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Since there were questions about the sources used in this article, I checked in the MLA database for sources on "Zelda Fitzgerald". There are 33. Most are journal articles about Zelda Fitzgerald's writing. I'm a little nervous that more of these aren't used. However, it could easily be that the material contained in these articles is replicated in the books used in the article. If the article editors could reassure us that they checked this, my concerns will evaporate. Awadewit (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Awad! Bruccoli, Cline and Milford all have chapters devoted to her writing. Haven't gotten all the way through Prigozy or Curnutt yet (they're more Scott books, but from the chapter names it doesn't look like they go into this). I felt that this was sufficient, but to be honest I didn't realize there were that many Journal Articles on the subject. Her prose is generally described as florid, and perhaps containing potential, but ultimately unpolished. I don't have access to the MLA database. Awad, if you really think the article needs it, would it be too much imposition to ask to e-mail me the best papers? I'm happy to work to integrate additional material, and would even enjoy reading some of those different perspectives. I am Jay.Hank, at the wonderful e-mail provider of Yahoo.com. Like I said, if the chapters in the books aren't sufficient (and I'll defer to your judgment on that), I'd really be deeply grateful for help. And I will (promise) have time to read, ponder and integrate before the end of the week. --JayHenry (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reading the article and looking at the material available, I do think that more could be added about her writings, especially since that is the way that the scholarship seems to be moving, as you note in the "Legacy" section: to recognize her as an author in her own right. Unfortunately, most of the material that I think will be helpful is not available electronically. I emailed you three articles. Here are the others that, from what I can tell, look like they will prove useful. If you want me to request them from my library, I will. The only one I can't send you is the book, obviously. Awadewit (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shurbutt, Sylvia. "Zelda Fitzgerald 1900-1948". American Writers: A Collection of Literary Biographies: Supplement IX: Nelson Algren to David Wagoner. Ed. Jay Parini. New York, NY: Scribner's, 2002. 55-73. - Although an encyclopedia entry, this looks like it might be focused on her writings, so it might be useful.
    • Felber, Lynette. "Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz: Household Plagiarism and Other Crimes of the Heart". Literary Liaisons: Auto/Biographical Appropriations in Modernist Women's Fiction. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois UP, 2002.
    • Castillo, Susan. "(Im)Possible Lives: Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz as Surrealist Autobiography". Writing Lives: American Biography and Autobiography. Eds. Hans Bak and Hans Krabbendam. Amsterdam, Netherlands: VU UP, 1998. 55-62.
    • Nanney, Lisa, "Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz as Southern Novel and Künstlerroman". The Female Tradition in Southern Literature. Ed. Carol S. Manning. Urbana: U of Illinois P; 1993. 220-32.
    • Hartnett, Koula Svokos. Zelda Fitzgerald and the Failure of the American Dream for Women. New York: Peter Lang; 1991.
    • White, Ray Lewis. "Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz: A Collection of Reviews from 1932-1933". Fitzgerald-Hemingway Annual 1979: 163-68.

    Here are the citations for the articles I emailed you:

    • Tavernier-Courbin, Jacqueline. "Art as Woman's Response and Search: Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz". Southern Literary Journal 11.2 (1979): 22-42.
    • Davis, Simone Weil. "The Burden of Reflecting': Effort and desire in Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz". Modern Language Quarterly 56.3 (1995): 327-362.
    • Wood, Mary E. "A Wizard Cultivator: Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz as Asylum Autobiography". Tulsa Studies in Women's Literature 11.2 (1992): 247-264.
    • Support Oppose (for now) This article is an excellent piece of biographical writing. I was drawn in: the editors have made Zelda Fitzgerald come alive. However, I'm going to oppose for the time being on comprehensiveness: I feel that her writings need to be better explained. The themes, style, and genre of her writings can be better explained. I have every confidence that the material I have sent JayHenry and listed above will allow him to rectify this problem. I know he is a diligent editor and I look forward to seeing the new material. (It would be nice to have a painting of Zelda's. Can we use anything from The Romantic Egoists: A Pictorial Autobiography from the Scrapbooks and Albums of F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, edited by Bruccoli, Smith, Kerr, and Lyons?) Awadewit (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much for those papers, Awadewit. I will start reading them this evening. I have a structural question though. Where do you think it would be best to integrate this material? As I see it, I could include it under the Save Me the Waltz subsection, under its own section between the Biography and Legacy sections, or as a "Critical reappraisal" subsection of Legacy. My initial preference is the latter, but would welcome your thoughts.
    As for including a paiting, I do have access to Romantic Egoists. But since Zelda painted after 1923 and died in 1948 it's my understanding that a painting would have to be uploaded under a claim of WP:FAIRUSE. Unfortunately, I've noticed that Wikipedia's WP:FAIRUSE policy is increasingly divergent from the actual legal and moral obligations of "Fair Use" and I'm reluctant to devote my energies explaining why it satisfies "NFCC#8" to editors who clearly have no legal or professional background whatsoever with Fair Use. --JayHenry (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Structure? I think it depends on what kind of material you get out of the articles. So much of it is focused on Save Me the Waltz, I would be tempted to put it there, but if there are general statements, a "Critical reappraisal" section would work as well. Why don't you just do what seems best to you? We can always revise! :)
    • I do think that a painting would greatly enhance the article. ZF was clearly an artist in many ways - I think it would help readers to see her work. If you upload the image, I'll work on the fair use rationale, if you want. We don't want policy to get in the way of producing the best article possible! :) Awadewit (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm making a concerted push to address the rest of the objections tonight. Have added to the sourcing per Dobby and Mojska and have added information on style and themes. I'm going to rewrite the final critical reappraisal section here in a bit, but will probably save detailed discussion of themes, style and genre of her novel for the Save Me the Waltz page. Also removed the hip flask image discussed below. --JayHenry (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is more being added still or should I reread? Awadewit (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, I am not quite finished yet! I will leave a note on your talk page when I'm ready, Awad. Sorry, been an awful week... I don't have the time for this hobby! --JayHenry (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a problem. Don't rush! There are no deadlines on wiki. :) Awadewit (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm supporting now, but I'm kind of disappointed that only the articles I emailed you were used. Since I volunteered to go to the library and get copies of the other ones if you needed them, I assumed when you didn't ask that you had access to them. I'm absolutely certain that these three articles do not represent the entirety of scholarly opinion on Zelda Fitzgerald's work. The only way to figure out what is to read a range of sources and see what they all agree on or what is considered most important in the field. Perhaps after you have written the Save Me the Waltz article, you can come back to this one. Writing author or artist articles is a huge amount of work because one has to read about the author/artist AND their works. Awadewit (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I'm not knowledgeable enough to question the article's comprehensiveness as Awadewit has done and as I read it, I felt it was clearly up to FA quality. The sources are well used and the prose, (apart from an excessive use of semicolons), is professional and engaging. All articles can be improved, (even FAs), and no doubt this one will be. I have to support this FAC because there are quite a few FAs that fall short of the standard set here. Allow me a couple of nitpicks.
      • Please do something about the semicolons; they spoil the flow. A high-point of the prose,(IMHO), was the simple sentence She complied."
      • And, she composed a novel - aren't novels written?

    Thank you for this contribution; it was really engaging. GrahamColmTalk 18:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Graham, I will do some semicolon surgery. --JayHenry (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, at least as far as 1a is concerned. TONY (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC) PS hip-flask image: why left side? There's a narrow neck of text between it and the right-side one to the north-east. TONY (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the flask image per below. --JayHenry (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Image:Scott Fitzgerald's Silver Hip Flask.gif: Where is support for the claim that the author of this image died more than 70 years ago? The flask may well have been inscribed in 1918, but the picture thereof appears to be a contemporary photography. The source asserts "Copyright 1996, the Board of Trustees of the University of South Carolina". ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed. --JayHenry (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Disclosure - I reviewed this article for GA, when I felt it was close to FAC. Since then various improvements have been incorporated and I am satisfied that it meets all the FA criteria. A couple of suggestions:-
      • The "Last Flapper" image in Expatriates section looks better if placed after the first para of the section (I've tried it, trust me.)
      • The brief last section "Critical reappraisal" seems somewhat formidably titled, given the sparse content. Perhaps a less ambitious title would be more suitable?

    Brianboulton (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Brian! I was actually in the middle of rewriting that last section when I had to go out of town at the last minute, and you caught it in an unfortunate state. It will make more sense when I'm finished. Working on it tonight. --JayHenry (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Can you please put an infobox as provided by WikiProject Biography? miranda 10:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've opted not to do that for this article. Because of the somewhat unusual nature of her life, Zelda's biography doesn't break down into factoids very well. I support infoboxes in general (where they're providing uniform information across a clearly defined group of people), but this is an example of an article where an infobox would impart little useful information (beyond what's already in the first sentence), so I've opted for this style. --JayHenry (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: After much deliberation, I feel as though I'm not as concerned about variety of sources as other folks. While I feel the article can be improved by adding info from more sources, I feel that it is currently at a standard I consider Feature-worthy. – Scartol • Tok 00:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add in the interest of full disclosure that I did a review during the article's gestation. – Scartol • Tok 00:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just went through this evening and added overviews from more of these sources. I think it's best not to go too much more in depth on topics like Save Me the Waltz's place in asylum autobiography on this article. I'd like to go through, however, and add more of that information to Save Me the Waltz. --JayHenry (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Pretty sure that's everything. If anybody still has concerns let me know. Thanks everyone for the careful reviews and for your patience with my hectic schedule on this one! --JayHenry (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment According to WP:MOSBIO, section "Subsequent use of names" suggests that Zelda should be avoided in favor of using the last name. It also provides recommendations how to handle the case when there are multiple family members with the same last name, as in this case. (*They* get their first names used for clarity, but not the topic of the article.) This is one of those strange things that bother me, like news anchors calling Secretary Rice by "Condi". Because I also agree that this isn't a simple cut-and-paste because so much of the article necessarily relates to Mrs. Fitzgerald's interactions with her husband, I leave this as a comment only, not an oppose. But I hope that we at editors look carefully at our gender biases when writing biographies. JRP (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please feel welcome and encouraged to fix this in any case that you can identify. I have really, honestly and seriously, tried to address this throughout and have literally begged for help with it. Please note this article conforms relentlessly to WP:MOSBIO. Zelda always contrasts with Scott; Fitzgerald never refers only to him. Furthermore, I can only advise those with this concern not to read biographies of Zelda. They do not call her Fitzgerald. --JayHenry (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, this is not at all the same as Condoleezza Rice. She was born a Rice, there is no other Rice implicit or explicit in any of the writing about her, (it's always implicit and often explicit in this article) and certainly not a Rice that shares her vocation, let alone a more famous Rice with whom she is principally known by association. --JayHenry (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    1. ^ 1
    2. ^ 2
    3. ^ 3
    4. ^ 4
    5. ^ United States Congress Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (2003). "Miami Circle/Biscayne National Park: report (to accompany S. 111)", United States Congress Senate Report 108-4.
    6. ^ Merzer, Martin (January 29, 2008). "Access to ancient site may come in near future", The Miami Herald (Florida), State and Regional News.
    7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Copp1999a was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    8. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Bercuson222 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Zuehlke168 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    10. ^ Cite error: The named reference O'Keefe was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    11. ^ Bercuson, p. 225.
    12. ^ Jarymowycz (1993), p. 81.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/June_2008&oldid=710498689"