Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2012

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October[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 Ian Rose 23:13, 27 October 2012 [1].

Pierre Monteux[edit]

Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk); Cg2p0B0u8m (talk); Brianboulton (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

This article was largely developed by Tim riley and Cg2p0B0u8m, and was Tim's current project when, last summer, he decided to leave Wikipedia. At the time I was peer-reviewing the article. After some recent email discussion Tim agreed that, subject to final polishing, I should bring the article to FAC—as was his original intention. Should the article achieve promotion the main honours will of course belong to him and his original co-editor. Monteux was an orchestral conductor of extraordinary longevity and influence, who presided over some of the 20th century's major musical landmarks including the premiere of The Rite of Spring in 1913. I think the article is ready, now, but any suggestions as to further improvement will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments by Crisco 1492 moved to talk

  • Support on prose and images. Looks pretty good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by I've a busy weekend coming up in RL, so I won't even read this for a few days. However, there are 22 duplicated links in the main text, excluding the lead.Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • See my comment above. I think these are fixed, now, though maybe a few have escaped detection. Brianboulton (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, the tool found two, but in each case, one was part of a reference, so all done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Maralia - This is really outstanding work. I made some small copyediting tweaks, with explanatory edit summaries. Please address these few remaining issues:

  • In the Early Years section, two consecutive sentences begin with "among".
  • In the First conducting posts section, I think it well worth mentioning that he was only 19 or 20 years old at the time he conducted for Saint-Saëns.
  • "...Olin Downes wrote that the new orchestra was "of very high rank" and that the broadcast concert had displayed Monteux at the height of his powers."" - this is missing a beginning quote mark for the second quote; not sure where it belongs.

So pleased to see another excellent article on a conductor. Well done! Maralia (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review & support. Brianboulton (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I also made some small copy edits, but Brianboulton should feel free to revert any with which he disagrees. This entry bears the unmistakable stamp of Tim riley's high-quality research and writing, and his co-editor and Brianboulton have done a superb job of polishing the article. It could probably use another image nearer the bottom of the article, if Brian has any more. Congratulations on another fine entry! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits look fine. Thanks for the support. Brianboulton (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I conducted a few minor edits around reference formatting, but other than that no issues at all. A final reminder of the brilliance of Tim riley. Congratulations also to Cg2p0B0u8m, for helping to produce such a fine piece of work (more please) and to Brian for his last minute buffing up and preparations. -- CassiantoTalk 19:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not a final reminder - ther's always hope of a return, one day. Thank you for your review and support. Brianboulton (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments for now (article looks very comprehensive)

I've made a few alterations here and there (feel free to complain), but have only got as far as the end of the Met and Boston section. Some points to ponder:

  • Early years: I don't think that "his formative years" makes a lot of sense. When exactly were they? And who was "one of the Casadesus family"?
  • "Formative years" is a widely used expression referring, broadly, to adolescence – the "growth and development" phase. This seems clear enough; do we really need a year range. I will have to take advice on which of the numerous Casadesuses is being referred to. Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ballets Russes: "A planned visit to St Petersburg had to be cancelled because the theatre burned down" - which of the St P theatres (there were several) was that?
  • I will have to investigate (I don't have the relevant source) Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rite of Spring: "symphonic and concertante works". What does "concertante" mean in this connexion? I see that WP redirects this word to "sinfonia concertante" - hm! Eric Blom says "an adjective used to designate instrumental or more rarely vocal parts in a composition which are designed largely for the display of virtuosity", which doesn't help either, IMO. More clarity required, IMNSHO.
  • I have linked concertante. The WP article, while not brilliant, gives a reasonable explanation in the lead, not dissimilar to that in the ODM. Is that clarification enough? Defining the term within the text would create somewhat awkward prose. Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More tomorrow, probably. --GuillaumeTell 21:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, it's now tomorrow. I've made a few more amendments. I was surprised that there is no link to Louis Fourestier, who has several red links and about 12 WP mentions in total, plus articles in French and German Wikis. I could knock up a stub from RS (Blom and Grove) without too much trouble.
  • Redlinked. A stub might be useful. There's a short biography in Grove online. Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments. I will chase up the missing answers. Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support We are getting to have early 20th century British music be a well-covered subject. Well done to all. I participated in the peer review and my concerns were satisfied.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I doubt that Monteux would be pleased to be lumped in with "early 20th century British music", but never mind. Thanks for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 23:13, 27 October 2012 [2].

Episode 14 (Twin Peaks)[edit]

Nominator(s): Grapple X, Idiotchalk, TBrandley 19:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another week, another television episode (sorry...). This one is the culmination of one of the larger pop-culture mysteries of the 1990s, finally revealing who killed Laura Palmer; as such I'd avoid it if you don't want the series spoilt for you (it is really good). Back from the holiday I mentioned last time so I'm now around at liberty, able to respond quickly to any concerns raised. Thanks in advance, guys. GRAPPLE X 19:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should tell User talk:TBrandley about this nomination. He made 149 edits to this article, and you made 56 and 21. Cambalachero (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pinged; had included myself and Idiotchalk as the main contributors of content material. GRAPPLE X 23:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, you two did a great job of the main writing of it. TBrandley 23:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Both images have acceptable licenses Cambalachero (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article review: Is the "Twin peaks" village fictional? If so, it must be pointed that way. Are "Bob" and "Mike" written in capital letters in the original? Usually it's not needed to use references in plot sections, but if you will do so, then include at least one in each paragraph. In the "Themes" section there is a sentence with two quotes, there should be a footnote at the end of each one (if it's the same one, repeat it). Cambalachero (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • He's referencing another episode, as this background information is not in Episode 14. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Thanks for the review. Have now mentioned that the town is fictional, although the wording as was had mirrored Episode 2 (Twin Peaks). MIKE and BOB are capitalised in most sources used, though admittedly it's a bit jarring to see. The sources used for the plot section are only for the "Background" heading, as it discusses events not seen in this episode; all paragraphs there are sourced, but the paragraphs in the "Events" heading, discussing the events of this particular episode, are not as they are supported by the subject of the article itself (what is cited is, again, material relating to prior episodes, not supported by the subject). Have duplicated the ref in the two-quote sentence, though I feel it's redundant to cite one source twice in one sentence (in consecutive sentences, yes, but I'm not entirely convinced by doing it in the same one twice). GRAPPLE X 23:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • re: BOB and MIKE. I think this is purely a stylistic issue and thus we can defer to our own relevant style guide, MOS:ALLCAPS, despite what the sources say. To give an analogy: your sources might use the quoted "Twin Peaks" for the show and an italicised Episode 14 for the episode. However, we'd still format these as Twin Peaks and "Episode 14" per our in-house style.—indopug (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough; I had assumed the use was innocuous enough. I'll want to keep an internal consistency with these articles so I'll get on this when I'm back from work today, so I can do them all at once (if you could ping me about this again or even comment again here that'd remind me to get on it). GRAPPLE X 07:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Grapple X. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still solid, like at the GA review.
  • questions Norma - About?
  • Changed to "speaks to"; she's not interrogating her so much as making conversation. GRAPPLE X 00:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • slow pace compared to the "fast-forward, instant payoff philosophy of most television". - Compared to or contrasted with?
  • Support - Most of my comments were dealt with at the GA review back in August. A couple minor notes and a copyedit, but nothing holding back my support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your review; have addressed your points now. GRAPPLE X 00:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments' good work, minded to support.
Lede
  • I think BOB could be better introduced. We get Killer BOB, then "the demon BOB", and thereafter, it's just BOB. Perhaps a brief parenthetical explaining that BOB is, in fact, a demon, who has been in possession of a town resident?
  • " criticized for prolonging" I'd toss an "unduly" in front of the prolonging.
  • Can the rating be compared to something? As it is, I don't know if 20 percent is good or bad ..
  • It's good (although it was only the 51st-highest score that week, 1 in 5 of every viewer seems good to me, especially as shows like The X-Files pulled in the same percentage while being the highest-viewed show, which I guess speaks to a greater number of broadcasts being watched at once but that's neither here nor there), but it's hard to put it into context—what should it be compared to in order to seem universal (the Super Bowl? Other Twin Peaks episodes?). I had put it into the context of what it actually represents—20% of the audience, rather than just a point score—hoping that would work. If you have a suggestion for a good yardstick I can fire it in for context but I don't really have a clue myself what to use. GRAPPLE

X 19:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would use the 51st of the week. That really isn't that great, it's midtable. Compared to, say, the similar episodes (revealing a murderer) on Dallas or Soap, it really isn't that much. However, the episodes I mention were relentlessly hyped, in one case for months. In this case, I gather it was not known that the murderer would be revealed? If so, you might want to say it somewhere in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 51st was already in there, but I've rearranged things to put that earlier. It was known that the episode would reveal the killer, newspapers had mentioned it in the lead up to the broadcast; but by this point the series had meandered into other storylines that had begun to put viewers off and the move was likely just seen as a desperate gambit to win some numbers back (it did bring an extra 6 million viewers over the previous episode, which is included). By this stage in the game, "who killed Laura Palmer" had lost a lot of steam compared to "who shot JR", I guess. Soap I'm entirely unfamiliar with. (I think that came out wrong...) GRAPPLE X 14:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Events
  • "MIKE goes into a spasm". You have not mentioned MIKE being among those assembled at the hotel.
  • "amongst". I would say "among".
  • "sheriff station" I have rarely heard that particular phrase. It does not have the feel of American English about it, somehow.
  • What is the reasoning for having SOME of the content in this section sourced? I could see having none of it sourced, or all of it, but some?
  • Quotes need to be sourced, while the main storyline doesn't. TBrandley 01:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep; as above, the cites are only for material not actually mentioned in this episode, as they don't fall under the idea of a subject being its own source (the plot to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead wouldn't need cited but if anything from Hamlet that isn't depicted in the former were mentioned, it would need a source. Why in Christ is Tom Stoppard my best example?) GRAPPLE X 19:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Sarah Palmer (Grace Zabriskie) struggles across her living room floor " struggles does not convey locomotion.
  • "leaving part of series of clues for Cooper" I'm not sure what is being said here.
  • Redone to directly address what this was; previous deaths like Laura Palmer had similar letter-under-the-nail clues. GRAPPLE X 19:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Production
  • "TV-14", "TV-PG" As these are roughly equivalent, suggest tightening with deleting the "though" and replacing comma with semicolon.
  • "a continual search" Perhaps "an ongoing search"?
  • I don't really understand what the quote is trying to say. It seems to be both saying that the writers of The Fugitive both were and were not mentioning the search for the one-armed man every week.
  • Hmm. I'm not seeing that myself but I can change it if you have a suggestion that would be clearer (I'm maybe too close to it to see how it reads in a vacuum); what's being said is that the one-armed man is sort of the always-in-the-background motivation but isn't always the subject of each individual episode, just as the murder of Laura Palmer drove Twin Peaks but it still spent plenty of times on other plotlines (such as a sawmill arson or bucknuts dream). If there's a better way to word it I'm open to changing it. GRAPPLE X 19:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it satisfies other reviewers, I would say let it go.
Themes
  • " in which BOB inhabits Leland Palmer," Surely that had already occurred, isn't it when the possession becomes known?
Broadcast and reception
  • "The episode has been well received critically." I would suggest using "was" here.
  • "a literal death" consider "an actual death"

That's all.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, between myself and TBrandley I believe everything has been responded to though I'd like your opinion on a few points above. GRAPPLE X 19:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support comments were substantively satisfied. Nice job.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review and support! TBrandley 15:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad to see another Twin Peaks article to review--and one of my favorites, at that. It looks comparable to the Episode Two FA thus far. I've been making some copyedits as I go through, hopefully you approve.
  • "visit The Great Northern hotel in an attempt to find BOB's human host. Upon their arrival, MIKE goes into a spasm, indicating that BOB's host is nearby." Is there a good way of avoiding the "BOB's host" repetition here?
    Changed to "indicating that BOB has inhabited someone nearby". GRAPPLE X 21:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but the waitress, along with Ed, puts on a façade and conceals the truth" I tend not to italicize façade, is that the general practice?
    Guess not. Still a bit confused by the whole loanword thing. Removed the italics. GRAPPLE X 21:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have to run now, but will try to get back to this soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for having a look; glad you enjoyed the episode. It's probably the highlight of the season, perhaps barring the finale. GRAPPLE X 21:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, for me, this or the conclusion of episode 16 would be the highlight of the season. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some small points, just a few more tweaks needed.
  • "Frost co-wrote three further installments—"Episode 16", "Episode 26" and "Episode 29".[8] It was directed by Lynch" It's not clear what "It" refers to here.
  • "It was directed by Lynch, the fifth such episode of Twin Peaks; he later directed "Episode 29", the series' finale.[9] This entry was rated TV-14 in the United States" It's not clear what "This entry" refers to here.
  • In the first paragraph of "Broadcast and reception" there's some repetition of "broadcast" and "viewing figures".
  • Check for consistency in noting locations for book publishers.
  • "This technique draws attention to the painting which Ferguson's head will be put through" Nothing major, but here's a proposed rewording: "This technique draws attention to the painting with which Ferguson will be assaulted"?

Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I've addressed all of your issues, with the exception of the "Broadcast and reception" issue. TBrandley 19:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything you could add about the music of the episode? It was somewhat prominent toward the end.
  • Have you checked out these [3][4][5] potential sources? I haven't looked in detail but there might be some content you could use. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll have a scan over those sources soon. As for the music, there's actually nothing specific to be said about it—Badalamenti didn't write new pieces once the series started regular production, simply referring staff to a library of pieces he composed around the time of "Pilot" being produced and allowing them to doctor the samples to create what they needed. I think I've mentioned that in an earlier article, though it really belongs somewhere central like Music of Twin Peaks rather than an individual episode's article. GRAPPLE X 21:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- hi TB, while I can gather that the source for the quotebox is #32, it should be explicitly cited. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I've addressed it, good catch! Cheers, TBrandley 05:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments reading through (again) now on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. Below is the only quibble and it is not a deal-breaker. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... noted that fans and critics had begun to turn against the series by this point - hmm, makes it sound political...rephrase?
  • THanks for your support. I've changed the relevant line to "begun to lose interest in the series" instead; how does that sound? GRAPPLE X 07:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
much better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 23:13, 27 October 2012 [6].

Hoodwinked![edit]

Nominator(s): Jpcase (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodwinked! was a computer-animated film released by the Weinstein Company in 2005. Although it was only a moderate financial success and received mixed reviews from critics, it was notable for being one of the first computer-animated films to be completely independently produced. The film parodies Little Red Riding Hood, telling the story as a police investigation and drawing inspiration from the 1950 Japanese film Rashomon. I nominated it for Featured Article Status a couple of months ago and although most issues that had been raised were addressed, it was closed without any supports or opposes. I have worked on it a little more, and believe that it now meets criteria for Featured Article Status. --Jpcase (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • I gave this article a fairly extensive review at its first nomination, so I'm reviewing the changes.
  • Why have you added "Squirrel" after occurrences of Twitchy? Twitchy should be enough. Why always Japeth the Goat?
  • Why "the character of" over and over? Boingo, Red, etc. should be able to stand on their own.
  • One paragraphs: Critical reception has been mixed. Next paragraph: Critical opinion of the film was mostly tepid. - Redundant
  • Still a little heavy on the quotes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for taking the time to give this article another look. I have removed all occurences of "Squirrel" from after Twitchy's name, and all occurences of "the Goat" from after Japeth's name, except for in the cast listing since that is the name the character is credited with on IMDB. I have also removed all occurences of "the character of" except for in the sentence, "...Cory Edwards created the hyperactive character of Twitchy to serve as the Wolf’s foil", since I feel that the description of "hyperactive" is useful in helping readers understand how the character serves as a foil to the Wolf. I have removed the sentence describing critical opinion to the film as tepid.
Can you give some specific examples of quotes that should be cut or paraphrased? I have made an effort to paraphrase more of the quotes since the last nomination was closed, but personally, I feel that a well-sized sampling of quotes should not be a problem in the Reception section of an article. I have looked at some other Featured Articles of films, and several of them are largely comprised of quotes in the Reception section. Still, if you can point to some specific quotes that would be better paraphrased or cut, then I will try to work on them. --Jpcase (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That first paragraph of "production" is a good example. 90% quote. Edward's quote on expertise, the paragraph referring to Monsters Inc., a couple of the reception quotes could be cut down to the gist. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have paraphrased much of the first two paragraphs of the Production section, and cut the "Monsters Inc." quote. I'm not sure what the "expertise" quote is that you are referring to. I cut two quotes out of the Reception section and shortened another. If you still feel that the Reception section has too many quotes, please give me specific examples. --Jpcase (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they weren’t specialists at the beginning of the project. There wasn’t a lighting team and an animation team and an animatic team. Everyone did everything. That isn’t always best, because you find out later that someone’s forté is lighting, but he’s been animating characters." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, but you should note that it was not objectively not ideal, but they found it not ideal. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point! I've edited the sentence to clarify that. I wasn't sure how to best paraphrase this quote, so if you have any other suggestions, please let me know. --Jpcase (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose and images per the above review and my review at the first nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article has basically been copy-edited and looked through by a dozen editors now, and after looking through its past FA nominations and how the article has evolved through time, I think it's as perfect as it could be. Bruce Campbell (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think that this article has been significantly improved since it's last FA nomination (I looked through the revision history). Per Bruce quote "It's as perfect as it could be" ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣ Talk 00:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- sole image has an appropriate fair-use rationale but I'd also like to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing; will probably take care of that myself if no-one beats me to it in the next day or two... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck

  • FN04 a/b/c/d: Okay
  • FN14 a/b/c/d/e: Okay
  • FN21 b/d: Okay

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 23:13, 27 October 2012 [7].

Missing My Baby[edit]

Nominator(s): Jonatalk to me 00:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...I fixed all issues on the last FAC and added quotes for every ref that needed a subscription for verification. Best, Jonatalk to me 00:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wikipedian Penguin: Per talk page request, I'm taking a look at the article. I hope these suggestions help:

  • "It was composed by A.B. Quintanilla III, her brother and principal record producer, and Pete Astudillo, a backup singer with Selena y Los." - should be for Selena y Los. Also, the sentence tells me that AB is not her brother, but that her brother is another one of the unnamed writers. Perhaps "It was composed by A.B. Quintanilla III—her brother—and principal record producer...". And why "principal"? There's only one producer.
    • A.B. was her main record producer (he produced and wrote most of her songs). Done Jonatalk to me 01:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many sentences lack coherence and logical flow. Unrelated ideas are being put together and not reading nicely. A few examples...
    • "Their intention was to showcase Selena's diverse musical abilities, and she wanted to include it on the album to help her to cross over into the English-speaking market."
    • "Critics praised the song, and a posthumous music video made for VH1 was released in 1998 to promote her triple box-set Anthology."
    • "It employs melisma, and Selena's emotive enunciation, emphasizing the song's title and its central theme, was highly praised by contemporary music critics." (just muddy)
  • "'Missing My Baby' was co-written by Pete Astudillo, a backup singer for Selena y Los Dinos, and Selena's brother and principal record producer A.B. Quintanilla III, who also produced it." - repetition here, "principal record producer A.B. Quintanilla III, who also produced it."
  • This is awkward, "... to showcase her diverse musical abilities and to allow a variety of musical styles to be represented on the album" - how does one song allow a variety of musical styles to be represented? And "allow" is not right here. Maybe "to add to the album's variety of musical styles and to showcase her diverse musical abilities"
    • Because the parent album contained mostly Latin-influenced songs. Done Jonatalk to me 01:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she decided that her next recording should contain an English-language song" - "would feature" is better in this context.
  • "and Full Force agreed to add backing vocals to the song, which they recorded in two days." - did they record the song in two days or just the additional vocals?
    You should probably cut "to the song" then to avoid confusion. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Jonatalk to me 01:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments to come. The article looks very comprehensive. With a very thorough copy edit, the prose should be good too. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Best, Jonatalk to me 01:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some more:

  • "The lyrics describe the love felt by the narrator, who thinks constantly and joyfully of the happy times she has shared with her lover." - "constantly" is unnecessary because this is (we're assuming) what the whole song is about.
    Done Jonatalk to me 01:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though" should be "although" in lead.
    Done Jonatalk to me 01:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • subject verb agreement inconsistency: "Selena's emotive vocalization, which have been highly praised by contemporary music critics"
    Done Jonatalk to me 01:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "R&B duo Full Force were the backing vocalists for both versions of "Missing My Baby"." - it would be nice to remind readers what these two versions are.
    Done Jonatalk to me 01:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be in critical reception and legacy section - "Cary Clack of the San Antonio Express-News commented that the recording "displays [Selena's] wonderful vocal and emotional range"."
    Done Jonatalk to me 01:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the chorus, repeated four times" - so it is played a total of five times?
    Huh? Jonatalk to me 01:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It played once first, then was repeated four times? I think you mean it is sung four times or played four times. Repeated means four additional times. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The lines that are part of the chorus were played four times in the song. Best, Jonatalk to me 22:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then that is what should be said. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the list of issues, I will momentarily have to oppose, but will continue to update with comments if needed. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "for this song and 'Techno Cumbia'" - sounds strange
  • "Crazy for you" should be "Crazy for You".
  • "while later" is awkward, probably because while would refer to simultaneous events and later would be a subsequent event.
  • "'Missing My Baby' was one of the first songs to be played after Selena was murdered" - vague; played where? On radio?
  • Should it be "Selena's first songs", not "the first songs".
  • "Billboard reported it to have been positioned at number 47 out of 50 music videos for that channel in the week ending 5 April, 1998" - needs rewording. "number 47 out of 50 music videos for that channel" isn't working.
  • In references, quotations inside the quotations should have single quotes. (eg. "Burr, Ramiro: "Missing My Baby"...) —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not following here, what do you want me to do? Jonatalk to me 23:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, any quotation marks within a quotation should be replaced with single marks, or apostrophes( ' ); for instance, "'The Full Force collaboration 'Missing My Baby,' is built on hooks that recall Diana Ross' Marvin Gaye tribute 'Missing You' and the Beach Boys' 'Good to My Baby'." Dan56 (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I apologize for my lazy (and sloppy) wording. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comprehensive for an album track. A couple of things first, though.
"contemporary R&B" is more of a historical phrasing to disambiguate from the original black music marketing term "rhythm and blues", so you could just replace [[contemporary R&B]] with [[contemporary R&B|R&B]].
Citations generally are placed after punctuation, so sentences like "a mid-tempo[5] contemporary R&B ballad with influences of urban[6] and soul music.[2]" can have its citations placed at the end, after the period, like "... and soul music.[2][5][6]"
  • Can you explain this? I'm not understanding what you mean. Jonatalk to me 00:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CITE#How to..., ref. tags are normally placed after the adjascent punctuation such as periods and commas. In the sentence above, tag #5 and #6 are placed after the word they are citing. I'd suggest placing all of them after the period ending the sentence. Dan56 (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those refs do not support each claim in that sentence that's why I have them like that. Jonatalk to me 03:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the sentence ending "week ending 5 April, 1998", the comma should be removed, as it is DMY format (WP:MOS/Dates)
Is this sentence being cited by the [1] source that follows in the next sentence?: "Quintanilla III wrote "Missing My Baby" in a week, and three weeks later, in late 1991, it was recorded at Sun Valley, Los Angeles." Dan56 (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not done, I still don't understand what you are asking me to do. Jonatalk to me 03:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The col-2 divider in the personnel section is only necessary for lists of at least 20 credits (WP:ALBUMSEL) Dan56 (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The abbreviation for the United States (US) should be with periods, U.S. In articles with UK or UAE, the other should be used (WP:MOS/Abbreviations)

Dan56 (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Erick moved to talk

Support Good work! Erick (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's hard to make a non-single song article a featured one, so this deserves FA status. --Khanassassin ☪ 14:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from TBrandley moved to talk

Delegate note -- on a quick read, still seems to be some room for improvement in the prose; since it's not a long article I may take care of it myself shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Completed quick copyedit, pls check no meaning altered inadvertently. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 23:13, 27 October 2012 [8].

Francis Marrash[edit]

Nominator(s): Bryan P. C. C. (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a Syrian writer, poet and physician of the 19th century. I am nominating it for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria. It has become a GA on September 2 and has been expanded since then. Any suggestions appreciated! Thank you in advance! Bryan P. C. C. (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Why use titles for some shortened citations and authors for others? Why include all authors for some citations and only first author for others?
  • Generally, don't italicize volume numbers
  • Wielandt source appears to be non-English, but is not notated as such
  • Robin Ostle or Ostle Robin? Formatting doesn't match other author/editor listings. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for your review! There are some books for which I haven't found who wrote the text I was referring to (the book edited by Robin Osle, and the Encyclopaedia of Islam—are the editors of the Encyclopaedia its only writers? is the 1991 edition based on a previous one?), what should I do? I hadn't found a clear answer there (or perhaps I misunderstood) so I added the name of the book... Thank you very much for your help! :) Bryan P. C. C. (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I did the GA review and still find it excellent. Very nice work. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Kürbis! :) Bryan P. C. C. (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • "where he would produce some more literary works until his early death." The previous part of the sentence, about his youth and medical career, doesn't mention him producing any literary works, so I don't think "some more" is warranted without some indication otherwise.
Done. Does it sound good?
Actually, I didn't want literary removed; I wanted "some" removed, as it is kind of vague (how many works)? I'd just get rid of that word to avoid such issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Bryan P. C. C. (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background and education: "and among them the priest Jibrail Marrash." Sentence works best without the "and" here.
Done.
  • Don't understand what "He was a man of letters" is supposed to mean. Does this mean he was a fan of them, or that he wrote many letters? Or something else?
The meaning would be "a man devoted to literary [...] activities", but I guess it's obvious from the rest of the paragraph, so it would be redundant, aside from being unclear. I removed it.
  • I see some redundant wording creeping in here and there. One example is in "after which he was sent back to Aleppo while his father remained in Paris for some more time"; the last four words are all unneccesarily adding on to what is already there, and the writing would be stronger with their removal.
Done.
  • Later writings: Feels like a word is missing from "The Arab cities had inspired him revulsion and indifference". Is it meant to have been "had inspired in him"? Giants2008 (Talk) 02:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fixed that. Thank you for your comments! Bryan P. C. C. (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support and interested to learn of him as the intellectual precursor of the much better-known Khalil Gibran. There were a few odd turns of phrase which I have sought to correct. If you aren't happy with my edits, happy to discuss. Haven't done source checking, but in general looks meticulous. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • SupportComments I'll jot some queries below. Looking good though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time, he wrote and published several works - ummm, on what? I think any descriptors of what the written material was would be helpful.
Circa 1865, Marrash published ... - why not just "Around 1865, Marrash published.." - the latter is plainer English....the former makes me think of abbreviations and I wouldn't use it in general prose.

Look - a very engaging read. A couple of minor quibbles only and we're over the line. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Casliber! I've moved a sentence within the introduction, does it sound better? Bryan P. C. C. (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks all good WRT comprehensiveness and prose. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 04:31, 26 October 2012 [9].

Frog[edit]

Nominator(s): Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) and Thompsma (talk · contribs)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have been working on it for four months and it has had a thorough peer review done by Thompsma and I believe (hope) it meets the required standard. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the reason is that this frog was first described in January 2012 and since then, nobody has updated the article Frog. I have added it now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All images appear to be properly licenced with no copyright issues. LittleJerry (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I support. However I think cite 1 will need an accessdate. LittleJerry (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have improved citation 1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support of course. Minor edits are inevitable. Sir Shurf (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comments A major achievement, as Sir Shurf says, bound to need some minor tweaking, but nothing obviously amiss.
  • I made these changes, adding links or moving link to first occurrence mainly.
  • I changed biomass to body mass since the former is both more technical and potentially ambiguous - see biomass
  • The dup links detector came up clear, but I did wonder if some of the semi-technical terms might have benefited from a link, or an earlier link. For example, I find it surprising that metamorphosis isn't linked in the lead or at its first occurrence in the body of the text. Perhaps you could see if any further links could be helpful Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. I will work on your wikilinks suggestion Jim and have responded to a query left some time ago on the article talk page by Sir Shurf. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Absolutely great work, as others have said. Only a grammatical point from me:

  • "The fire-bellied toads Bombina bombina and Bombina variegata similarly form hybrids," would, for me, be better worded as "[...] are similar in forming hybrids,". MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you for your comments. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • lead
  • possibly useful links: species diversity, glandular, taxonomy, keystone, vocalizations, behaviours, predators, threatened Done
  • "There are 4,800 recorded species" exactly? Done
  • "Frog warts (or verrucae)" since the word verrucae isn't used again in the lead, how about leaving this jargon until later in the article? Done
  • tweak linking well-camouflaged to well-camouflaged Done
  • "they Metamorphosismetamorphose into"fix link Careless of me
  • "Frogs are extremely efficient at converting what they eat into body mass which makes them an important food source for predators." add comma after mass Done
  • "one third of all frog and salamander species (33.6%)" don't need the exact value in the lead, just use "about" or "approximately" Done
  • Etymology and taxonomy
  • is there prior precedent for the use of Online Etymology Dictionary as a reliable source? I'm happy to change this. Can you suggest a more reliable source?
I don't see a need. It gives its sources on the main page. LittleJerry (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • link classified, families Done
  • "a urostyle" a-> an Done. Looks odd to me because the word is pronounced as if it started with a "y".
I changed this back to "a urostyle". The choice between a and an depends on the pronunciation, not the spelling (compare "a university"). Lesgles (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "subcutaneous lymph spaces"; "protractor lentis muscle";"keratinous beaks and denticles" this jargon needs links Done
  • "Future studies of molecular genetics should provide further insights into the evolutionary relationships among anuran families." WP:Crystal violation? Removed

... More soon

Thank you for undertaking this review. I have dealt with all the points mentioned above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evolution
  • links: caecilian, divergence, lissamphibian, neobatrachia, Temnospondyli, Carboniferous, Caudata, stem, Texas, common ancestor, tree, family Done
  • "…and that the temnospondyl-origin hypothesis was more credible than other theories." was->is ? I changed this but think that "was" was better.
  • "questioned the choice of calibration points used" should explain what this means Done
  • "from the 250 million year old early" -> 250 million-year-old Done
  • "a forward directed ilium" forward-directed Done
  • "unlike the fused urostyle or coccyx found in" italics not needed Done
  • "The tibia and fibula bones are also separate making it probable that" comma after separate (for a pause) Done
  • "from the early Jurassic (188–213 million years ago)" Jurassic has already been linked, and if you give the dates, it should be on the 1st occurrence Done
  • "evolutionary changes in chromosome numbers" -> chromosome numbers is a better link Done
  • "mammals than in frogs which means that" comma after frogs Done
  • "An early, well preserved fossil" -> well-preserved Done
  • "found in present day species" -> present-day Done
  • should indicate somewhere why Indirana has a question mark in front (perhaps in a footnote?) Removed as it was not supported by the citation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Axl

  • From the lead section, paragraph 4: "In 2006, one third of all frog and salamander species that depend on water during some stage of their life cycle were considered to be globally threatened or extinct." Why are salamander species included? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The source used was concerned with amphibians rather than frogs. Frog species number 88% of total amphibian species and the caecilians are basically terrestrial, not requiring water to breed, so I used this figure. I could search for a purely Anuran figure if you think the present figure unsatisfactory. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, please do. The inclusion of salamanders is confusing, and potentially creates bias in an article about frogs. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the studies that I can find refer to amphibians rather than just frogs, so I have removed the words "frog and salamander" from the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded this section of the lead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With the new text, it is unclear if the figure refers to all amphibians or just frogs. (The preceding sentence refers to "amphibians".) Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have clarified this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Which reference is that from? Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a reference to the lead section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Etymology and taxonomy", paragraph 1: "The common features possessed by the "proto-frogs" in the Salientia group include fourteen presacral vertebrae (modern frogs have eight or nine), a long and forward sloping ilium in the pelvis, the presence of a frontal parietal bone and a lower jaw without teeth." This text is referenced to Tree of Life. However the source does not provide this information. Also, the text would be better placed in the "Evolution" section. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This specific information is at the foot of the Tree of Life page. I have moved this part paragraph to the Evolution section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake, you are right. Thank you for moving the text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Etymology and taxonomy", paragraph 2: "The fire-bellied toad (Bombina bombina) has a slightly warty skin and prefers a watery habitat." The reference describes Bombina bombina as the fire-bellied toad. However Wikipedia's article describes the fire-bellied toad as a genus: Bombina sp., while the European Fire-bellied Toad is Bombina bombina. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Etymology and taxonomy", last paragraph: "Some species of anurans hybridize readily. For instance, the edible frog (Rana esculenta) is a hybrid between the pool frog (R. lessonae) and the marsh frog (R. ridibunda)." The reference is from 1999. I wonder if the genus name Rana is outdated, with the new name Pelophylax? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The scientific names have changed in AmphibiaWeb since I used and referenced this source 4 months ago. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Evolution", paragraph 2: "Its skull is frog-like, being broad with large eye sockets, but the fossil has features diverging from modern frogs. These include a longer body with more vertebrae and a forward-directed ilium in the pelvis." Isn't a forward-sloping ilium a feature of modern frogs? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Morphology and physiology", paragraph 1: "Because the oxygen is dissolved in an aqueous film on the skin and passes from there to the blood, the skin must remain moist at all times." I am not convinced that's true. Are the lungs inadequate to provide gas exchange for the frog? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have rephrased this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Morphology and physiology", subsection "Skin", paragraph 3: "The male hairy frog (Trichobatrachus robustus) has dermal papillae projecting from its lower back and thighs giving it a hoary appearance." I'm not sure what "hoary" means in this context. Does it mean silvery-grey? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I checked in the dictionary and saw that I had misused the word. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Morphology and physiology", subsection "Respiration and circulation", paragraph 1, perhaps it is worth mentioning buccal pumping? Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Distribution and conservation status", paragraph 2: "The latter is of particular concern to scientists because it inhabited the pristine Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve and its disappearance could not be linked directly to human activities." Why does the absence of a link to human activity make this extinction "of particular concern"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an explanation and extra reference. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Distribution and conservation status", paragraph 2: "Increased mortality from birds may actually increase the likelihood of parasitism." Should this be "Increased bird mortality"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Distribution and conservation status", paragraph 5: "A Canadian study conducted in 2006 suggested that heavy traffic in their environment was a larger threat to frog populations than was habitat loss." Perhaps move this sentence to the latter part of paragraph 2? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for moving the sentence. However you did not change the referencing for the preceding sentence in paragraph 2. Can you please confirm the reference for that sentence? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a new reference Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Morphology and physiology", subsection "Digestion and excretion", paragraph 1: "The tongue normally lies coiled in the mouth, free at the back and attached to the mandibles at the front." Should this be "mandible" (singular)? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Morphology and physiology", subsection "Reproductive system", paragraph 1: "The ovaries of the female frog are beside the kidneys and the eggs pass down a pair of oviducts to the exterior." Do the eggs pass through the cloaca? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Morphology and physiology", subsection "Nervous system": "Frogs have ten cranial nerves which pass information from the outside directly to the brain." Should this be ten pairs of cranial nerves? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Morphology and physiology", subsection "Torpor", paragraph 2: "The researchers wondered why such a mechanism is not more widely used in the animal kingdom. They concluded that it would only be useful to an animal that remains completely unconscious for an extended period of time...." I don't think that this extended speculation is required. Perhaps just delete the first sentence, and change the second to "This is only useful to animals that remain completely unconscious for an extended period of time...." Or even delete both sentences completely. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Morphology and physiology", subsection "Torpor", paragraph 2: "Other research showed that, to provide these limited energy requirements, muscles became atrophied but that the hind limb muscles were preferentially unaffected." Perhaps change this to be more definitive: "To provide these energy requirements, muscles atrophy, but hind limb muscles are preferentially unaffected." Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Locomotion", subsection "Jumping", paragraph 1: "The Australian rocket frog, Litoria nasuta, can leap over 50 times its body length of 5.5 centimetres (2.2 in), resulting in jumps of over 2 metres (6 ft 7 in)." Please re-phrase this to give the absolute distance (2 metres) first, followed by the relative distance. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Locomotion", subsection "Jumping", paragraph 1: "The acceleration of the jump may be up to twice the acceleration under gravity." I'm not sure that most readers would understand what this means. A full explanation is beyond the scope of this article. Either quantify the acceleration (19.6 ms-2 ?) or delete the sentence completely. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Locomotion", subsection "Jumping", I wonder if paragraphs 2 & 3 would be better placed in "Morphology and physiology", subsection "Feet and legs", but I don't have a strong opinion about this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved one and a half paragraphs. Looks good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Locomotion", subsection "Swimming": "Frogs are at their most vulnerable to predators when they are undergoing metamorphosis. At this time the tail is being lost and locomotion by means of limbs is only just becoming established." I'm not sure why this is in the "Swimming" subsection. Perhaps move it to "Defence"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the sentence to the "Metamorphosis" section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Locomotion", subsection "Climbing": "The forces involved include surface tension and viscosity, but mostly involve boundary friction of the toe pad epidermis on the surface." Can you re-order the sentence to state the main effect (boundary friction) first please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Natural history", subsection "Reproduction", paragraph 2: "Among prolonged breeders, males usually arrive at the breeding site first and remain there for some time whereas females tend to arrive later and depart after they have spawned." How about "... and depart soon after they have spawned." Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Natural history", subsection "Reproduction", paragraph 3: "In some years, suitable conditions may not occur and the frogs may go for one or more years without breeding." Should this be "two or more years"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Natural history", subsection "Life cycle", subsection "Eggs", paragraph 1: "Frog's eggs are typically surrounded by several layers of gelatinous material and are known as frogspawn." Oddly, the word "frogspawn" redirects to "Euphyllia divisa". Also, isn't the "egg" both the internal black bit and the external clear jelly? Isn't the word "frogspawn" defined as a clump of multiple eggs? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and "frogspawn" no longer redirects to the coral of the same name.. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Natural history", subsection "Life cycle", subsection "Eggs", paragraph 1, with the discussion of unicellular green algae, perhaps mention symbiosis or mutualism? Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Natural history", subsection "Life cycle", subsection "Eggs", paragraph 2: "The smoky jungle frog (Leptodactylus pentadactylus) makes a foam nest in a hollow with about a thousand eggs which hatch when they get flooded, or even complete their development in the nest." This awkward sentence needs to be re-phrased, perhaps split into two. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Natural history", subsection "Life cycle", subsection "Eggs", paragraph 2: "Aquatic eggs normally hatch within one week when the capsule splits as a result of hormones released by the developing larvae." Are they really hormones? Or enzymes? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My error. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Natural history", subsection "Life cycle", subsection "Tadpoles", paragraph 1: "At least one species (Nannophrys ceylonensis) has tadpoles that are semi-terrestrial and live among wet rocks,[115][116] but as a general rule, free living larvae are fully aquatic." Please re-arrange the sentence to state the general rule first. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Natural history", subsection "Life cycle", subsection "Metamorphosis": "The nervous system becomes adapted for stereoscopic vision and hearing." Do frogs really have stereoscopic vision? Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this is so. I have added some extra references to this section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. Actually I found a good reference here that could be used to add information to the "Sight" subsection. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have used your source in the Sight section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Natural history", subsection "Parental care", paragraph 2: "When they hatch, the female moves them on her back to a water-holding bromeliad or other similar water body, depositing just one in each location." Does she move the tadpoles? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! I have done quite a bit of rephrasing in "Parental care". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Defence", paragraph 2: "In part of its range where both of its two models are present, it mimics the less toxic one." I'm not sure how this is relevant. Perhaps just delete the sentence? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed it. Mimicking the less toxic species is a more successful strategy because the predators that feed on the more toxic species don't learn lessons because they are dead! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Defence", last paragraph: "The strategy employed by recently metamorphosed American toads (Bufo americanus) on being approached by a snake was to crouch down and remain immobile." Is "recently metamorphosed" relevant? If not, delete it. Also, present tense would be better. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Uses", paragraph 1: "Originally they were supplied locally but overexploitation led to a diminution in the supply and now there is a world trade in frogs." The conjunction "and" implies that there is a connection between the first and second parts of the sentence, but these are only tangentially related. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Uses", paragraph 6: "It has long been suspected that pre-Columbian Mesoamericans used the venom of the cane toad (Bufo marinus) as a hallucinogen." I didn't know that some frogs/toads produced venom. This is worth mentioning in the "Digestion and excretion" subsection. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the word "venom" to "toxin". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Uses", last paragraph: "Two other species, the Kokoe poison dart frog (Phyllobates aurotaenia) and the black-legged dart frog (Phyllobates bicolor) are also used for this purpose but are less toxic and need to be heated over a fire to extract the poison." The frogs have to be heated over a fire? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is roughly what the source states. I have changed the wording in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Are the frogs alive or dead while they are being heated? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess they are dead by that time. I have rephrased the statement and referenced it to the primary source which merely states "... are impaled on a special stick entering the mouth and exiting through a hind leg; the spitted frog may sometimes, but not necessarily, be held near fire while darts are rubbed in its skin secretions." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is an excellent article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jesse V.

Thank you. I will work have worked through your list and made corrections. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 07:13, 25 October 2012 [10].

Interstate 696[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 04:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has another one of the more unique histories for a highway in Michigan. At the time construction of this 20-mile (32 km) freeway started, James Blanchard was in high school. When it was completed, he was the sitting Governor of Michigan. I-696 has some unique design features that overcame the opposition to the construction of the central section, which you can learn about when you read and review the article. Imzadi 1979 → 04:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe that it is a USGS image, but it still needs a source: a website or book or dataset or something. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Per my review at ACR. Dough4872 15:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my review at ACR. –Fredddie™ 16:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Hi Imzadi, correct me if I'm wrong but looks to me like it's been over a year since one of your noms had a source spotcheck for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, in which case about time for another... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll do the spotcheck, it might take me a while though. Plan to look at 5 sources; with 33 sources and some of those being maps that should be plenty. --Rschen7754 19:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Source 5: (DFP: Speed limit) no plagiarism, additional source added.
    • Source 15: (Recommended interstate MDOT) Wound up being a map, so no plagiarism, and the 98 line is approximate to the I-696 line in the map above.
    • Source 22: (I-94 I-75 Argus) slight rewording done, no plagiarism.
    • Source 26: (Lathrup Argus) verifiable, no plagiarism.
    • Source 30: (MI Const MCB) slight rewording done, no plagiarism.
  • Comment—a bot was run on the article to check dashes. The one hyphen it changed to an en dash was not correct. The one MDOT source uses chapter-based pagination, so page B1-17 is actually the 17th page of chapter B1, not a page range. Imzadi 1979 → 01:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 07:13, 25 October 2012 [11].

Interstate 80 in Iowa[edit]

Nominator(s): –Fredddie™ 02:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is the most important road in the state of Iowa. I'm proud of where the article has gone in the last few months. I welcome your reviews and feedback; I hope you enjoy this article. –Fredddie™ 02:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- As this appears to be Fredddie's first FAC in a while, like to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Reference 13 is a dead link. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 04:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dropped the dead link. I should have archived it when I had the chance. –Fredddie™

Comment: This article is very near FA standards, I just have one comment. Although WP:USRD/STDS states that an auxiliary routes section is optional, I believe that is would be beneficial here. I-80 has three auxiliary routes in Iowa, two of which have articles that are GAs, yet, this article barely mentions them. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 04:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit puzzled by this - why is the quality of the other articles relevant? Also, why do you believe an "auxiliary routes" section is required? Furthermore, note that Interstate 70 in Colorado has auxiliary routes and does not have a such section. --Rschen7754 05:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about I-80, not the four auxiliary routes. That they're numbered I-X80 really doesn't have a lot to do with I-80 in and of itself. And yes, the quality of those articles is completely irrelevant. –Fredddie™ 11:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotchecks Hi, I only looked at one reference, footnote number 29 that cites this sentence: Each new rest area is designed around a theme. Looking at the source cited, I can't actually find that anywhere [12]. Then I looked at footnote 26, citing this paragraph: The Iowa DOT operates 37 rest areas and one scenic overlook in 20 locations along its 780 miles (1,260 km) of interstate highway. Along I-80, there are nine locations that have facilities for each direction of traffic. Parking areas are divided so passenger automobiles are separated from large trucks. Common among all of the rest stops are separate men's and women's restrooms, payphones with TDD capabilities, weather reporting kiosks, vending machines, and free wireless Internet. Many stations have family restrooms and dump stations for recreational vehicles. Same source, and again, can't find the info. It may be on one of the subpages for this website and if so then please swap out with the specific link to the page citing these facts. Each page might need a separate reference with a separate title. Publisher would the be same. I'll be back to check more later; no rush on this. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding fn 29, the page cited is a list of information posters about the rest areas, so no, the information is not on that page. Basically, I'm saying "here is a list of information posters. If you click on them, you will see that they are designed around a different theme." I'm kind of at a loss at how to fix this. I could cite all 14 posters individually (which I think would be distracting), I could create a compound citation that lists all 14 posters (not as distracting, but leaning to overkill), or I could leave it as is and assume the reader is smart enough to click on a few of the poster links. Any input would be helpful.
  • Regarding fn 26, when I go to that page [13], I get a chart showing what services are at which stop. –Fredddie™ 23:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must have clicked on the wrong one or something - prosifiying the chart is fine. This newspaper article is good, describes the rest areas and mentions the themes. If you add this to the other one with the pics then you're covered. I'll check more tomorrow. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, swapped out added that reference and archived it via Webcite. –Fredddie™ 01:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

spotchecks cont

  • Source: "The interchange is identified in a new American Transportation Research Institute report as the worst heavy truck rollover “hot spot” in Iowa. Thirty heavy trucks rolled over at the interchange during a study from 2001 through 2009, more than any other spot in the state." [14]
  • Article: "The I-80 / I-380 interchange was identified by the American Transportation Research Institute as the most likely location in Iowa for a semi-trailer truck to overturn. Between 2001 and 2009, 33 trucks rolled over at the interchange"

The phrasing used in this section is too close to the source (and the number is incorrect per the source). Will check a few more. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • That sentence originally did not mention the American Transportation Research Institute. However, at ACR, I was asked to specify who identified the interchange as dangerous. [15] It certainly wasn't intentional. I have revised the two sentences in question, but I'm if the rollover sentence was adequately modified. –Fredddie™ 19:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should mention that I had a Wikimedia error while I was editing this, which explains why I erased half the article... –Fredddie™ 19:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The servers were definitely acting up because I was having trouble too. Thanks for the rewording; I think you could probably shove into a note who compiled the report and that solves the problem of being too close to the source. I haven't found any other issues. One thing though: although I removed some, check for WP:Overlinking, and also because the page was slow I forgot to check for non-breaking spaces between the US and numbers. Probably worth adding those. I saw a few prose glitches and may do a copyedit at some point. I do like that stretch of I-80 btw. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ran the article through AWB since it's better at spotting overlinking than I am, and it passed through without catching anything. I also added some nbsps like you asked. –Fredddie™ 01:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

spotchecks cont.

  • Article: "Each year, the truck stop serves more than 2 million cups of coffee. Since it opened in 1965, it has served more than 64 million customers."
  • Source: "It serves more than 2 million cups of coffee each year .... In its 45 years, the truck stop has served 64 million customers."[16]

This needs rephrasing as well. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

final comments:

  • I'll let the delegates decide what to do here: Footnote 11 [17] cites bridges, but can't find anything about bridges in the page linked; footnote 4 mentions rural areas (farmland) but nothing in the source [18] about rural areas. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fn 4 is citing the corridor population. I didn't think anyone would challenge there being farmland in Iowa. :) I added a Google Map reference, which, when zoomed in, shows lots of rural areas.
    • From fn 11: "Download a map of Madison County and Winterset, Iowa, that features covered bridge locations and sites from the movie, Bridges of Madison County." –Fredddie™ 22:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • FN 11 - apologies, it was staring me in the face (obviously not used to dealing with maps as sources!). FN 4 - thanks for the clarification re rural (and agree with your comment above) but still not finding anything in the source that says 1/3 of the pop. lives along I-80, which is now what's being cited. It's entirely possible I'm overlooking something very obvious. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • It requires a little math, but it's in the chart/image (why a chart is an image is beyond me). I-80 corridor population = 993,121; state population = 3,002,555; 33.08% –Fredddie™ 01:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was beginning to realize it might be something like that. You're good to go. Thank you very much for being so patient. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Tks for the spotcheck, TK. Fredddie, before we wrap this up, I see that the article contains many duplicate links that should be dealt with. If you don't have Ucucha's dup link tool installed to highlight them all, you can find it here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cleared out the overlinking highlighted by Ucucha's tool. I also went through the exit list and cleaned it up with the idea of having only unique links in the list itself. –Fredddie™ 05:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 07:13, 25 October 2012 [19].

Folding@home[edit]

You may be looking for a different page: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Folding@home SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Nominator(s): • Jesse V.(talk) 01:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for Featured Article because I believe that it meets the FA criteria. It uses a multitude of reliable citations, is GA-class, has undergone a peer review, and thoroughly describes the subject in an encyclopedic fashion. This article should stand a very good chance at becoming a Featured Article, and I look forward to your comments and suggestions! • Jesse V.(talk) 01:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This page is getting lengthy, so as a TL;DR, here is a summary of the current situation: discussion has been very extensive, support appears to be slowly growing in favor of promotion, and the following editors have significantly contributed:
  1. PumpkinSky has voiced support following an image check and citation comments.
  2. Crisco 1492 supports promotion following prose comments and a request for an improved image, which have both been resolved and moved to the Talk page.
  3. Emw is supporting after identifying some clarity weaknesses in the prose and asked for the insertion of several explanatory images. He has knowledge and background in the relevant fields, and is the primary editor of the FA-class Rosetta@home article.
  4. EdJohnston left some suggestions on prose and proposed a new lead, but has not responded to discussion about them despite several reminders. He also has a background in the relevant fields.
  5. Hekerui left prose comments which should now be all resolved.
  6. Tonystewart14 identified some link issues, which have been taken care of.
  7. Ian Rose identified some minor technical issues, which were addressed.
  • Comments from PSKY
    • A well written lead is a summary. As such, it should need few, if any, refs. If it's ref'd in the body, you don't need it in the lead unless it's an exceptional claim. This is the rule of thumb, though of course sometimes mileage varies. I highly doubt your lead needs 12 refs. You should be able to remove most, possibly all refs from the lead. See the FA Yogo sapphire, which has a longer lead, but with no refs.
I have removed citations from the lead where there was supporting information in the article. The information in the info template is not supported, so I left the citations there. • Jesse V.(talk) 02:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That should be one of your top priorities then. Information like the software release date should be included somewhere in the article. It is currently mentioned in the lead but not later in the article which isn't in line with WP:LEAD. I haven't had a chance to read the whole article yet, but it seems to be lacking history. There certainly isn't a section. What led to its creation? I've got a source here, Jane McGonigal's Reality is Broken, which says that "Since 2001, anyone in the world has been able to connect their personal computer to the Folding@home network." PS3 came later, specifically because they were more powerful. Granted, the information is available (that it started in 2007) in the Playstation 3 section, but I feel that is poor organization. Should some of that not be mentioned in the Client section or a base history section that doesn't currently exist? I hope to get a chance to read it fully soon, but I'm a bit concerned about the amount of technical language used. Of course an article like this will have technical language, but this seems to have an overwhelming amount of it. This is an interesting topic, and I wouldn't like the technical information in it to make reading a bore. Ryan Vesey 02:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may have missed something in the policies, but I don't think the infobox is considered as part of the lead. I consider it part of the body. Take for example the FA article acetic acid which has all sorts of numbers and things in its infobox which is is not in the body. To duplicate version numbers in the article also makes it harder for other editors to update the version number, and its possible that the two could get out of sync, which wouldn't look good. • Jesse V.(talk) 03:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the reasons that led to F@h's creation: the article presents information on why this project is important. From the early publications on F@h, it seems that the project was developed for these reasons. If a change is in fact needed, I'm not sure how to present the information. Those early papers seem less scientific and a bit more opinionated. The article does mention the first screensaver, I could put a release date on that. • Jesse V.(talk) 16:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the launch date in body of the article like you wanted. It's tied into the line about the screensaver in the Client section. • Jesse V.(talk) 20:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article talks about F@h's history, the article does talk about it. It presents a history of the GPU, SMP, and PS3 clients in their respective sections, since they all developed separately. They all started from a screensaver, which is also discussed in the Client section. With this in mind, I believe the organization makes sense. • Jesse V.(talk) 03:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject is technical in nature and in order to meet FA's criteria I thought details were important. An expert shouldn't go wanting. Please see this section in the article's Talk page for some past comments on this from Dmitrij D. Czarkoff, the GA reviewer. If you has specific areas that you think I can improve, or you have suggestions on rewording, please let me know and I'll do my best to address them. • Jesse V.(talk) 03:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much better on lead refs. Yes infoboxes are on their own. I didn't notice some refs were in it. But again, much of it will be in the body.PumpkinSky talk 10:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are no longer in active service.[146][4][147]", "usage is unaffected.[40][2]" refs are out of sequence. Your referential duckies must all be lined up.
The referential duckies appear to be all lined up and floating nicely now. Good catch. • Jesse V.(talk) 02:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 118, the Chinese one, is misformatted
Fixed. • Jesse V.(talk) 02:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • all for tonight. It's too late for me to go through this thoroughly, so if you don't see me here again after two days, ping my talk page. PumpkinSky talk 01:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image check by PSKY
Regarding File:F@h_v7_novice_shot.png, that's a picture of FAHControl, which is GPL 3.0. I'm running V7, and if I click the About button (you can see it in the upper right-hand corner of the pic) the About screen says "GPL v3.0" and has a link to the GPL3 page. See this page for additional confirmation. • Jesse V.(talk) 00:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GPL confirmation is important so I've added that link to the image licensing section. PumpkinSky talk 01:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So I see. Thanks. • Jesse V.(talk) 02:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nowLeaning support now, pending work on table and source check.PumpkinSky talk 14:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Work on table"? Sorry, what exactly would you like to have fixed? • Jesse V.(talk) 14:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff Crisco mentioned on 24 Sep. Is that done now?PumpkinSky talk 16:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. • Jesse V.(talk) 17:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting now. I was waiting for someone like Emw to support as he seems to know a lot on the tech side of this. The other aspects are fine now IMHO.PumpkinSky talk 18:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Remove some external links per WP:ELNO. TBrandley 14:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please specify which ones you would like me to remove? • Jesse V.(talk) 14:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on relevance, generally. I'd trim Folding@home support forum, "Futures In Biotech" episode about Folding@home, and Video of 1.5ms folding of NTL9 for starters. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. • Jesse V.(talk)
Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk
  • Support now that Emw has finished his review. Leaning support; currently waiting on Emw and Ed to vet this (I'm not comfortable supporting without someone better versed in the topic than me going over it) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Emw: I am knowledgeable about biochemistry and have some background in this article's general topic area. I did an intensive review of this article almost a year ago. I plan to review it again here within a week or so. Emw (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Project significance
This is the article's most advanced section and it's important to simplify the subject matter as much as possible. Here are some points along those lines:
  • "Due to the complexity of proteins' conformation space and limitations in computational power, all-atom molecular dynamics simulations have been severely limited in the timescales which they can study."
Although it's wikilinked, there should be some sort description of what "conformation space" is, and even what "conformation" is. Conformations are pretty central to understanding what Folding@home does, so the brief note would be valuable to virtually all readers. A note in the body of the article as well as the protein folding image caption would work well. Emw (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I'll think about how best to do this. • Jesse V.(talk) 20:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added a note, and expanded the caption. One alternative is to add an explanation to the Notes section at the bottom of the page. • Jesse V.(talk) 00:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "General-purpose supercomputers have been used to simulate protein folding, but such systems are intrinsically expensive and typically shared between many different research groups, and because the computations in kinetic models are serial in nature, strong scaling of traditional molecular simulations to these architectures is exceptionally difficult."
This is a long sentence -- please break it into at least two sentences. Emw (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. • Jesse V.(talk) 20:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead, proteins spend the majority of their folding time – nearly 96% in some cases[18] – "waiting" in various intermediate conformational states, each a local thermodynamic free energy minimum in the protein's energy landscape."
I think this article and Wikipedia more broadly would benefit from a graphic illustrating what an "energy landscape" is. Without an image I think the idea is difficult to conceptualize and will strike a lot of readers as academic hand-waving. An image like this energy landscape would be great. I'm not aware of any free alternative, but a bumpy 3D funnel with those axis labels would help a lot of people have the "ah-ha" moment needed to understand most of this section. Such a graphic would help dozens of other articles, too.
If you're handy with Python, there's an example of something close to an energy landscape plot in the bottom of the matplotlib gallery. Such plots are also doable in R or in JavaScript with D3 or WebGL. I might be able to make this if you don't have the time or inclination. Emw (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's an article on the folding funnel but it lacks an illustration. I'll look into wikilinking to that article and mentioning it in the article. • Jesse V.(talk) 20:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll take a look into making the image. If you plan to do that though, let me know so our efforts aren't duplicated. Emw (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)\[reply]
Thanks very much. You're probably better able to make a proper folding funnel illustration than I am. • Jesse V.(talk) 00:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With the recently added MSM image, a reasonably sized folding funnel graphic would sandwich the text too much. Emw (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the simulations discover more conformations, the trajectories are restarted from them, and a Markov state model (MSM) is gradually created from this cyclic process. MSMs are discrete-time master equation models which map out a biomolecule's conformational and energy landscape by describing its set of distinct structures and the transition rates between them."
Markov state models are in the same boat as energy landscapes: understanding them is fairly central to understanding this article, but generally only upper-level undergraduate students in a relevant field (e.g. math or computer science) or above will know what the concept is. The explanation of MSMs given in this article isn't bad, but it will leave most readers bewildered. Do any of the journal articles illustrate how Folding@home uses MSMs? If so, I think it be a major boon to this article's accessibility if similar diagrams could be adapted from published ones and included in this article. Emw (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the explanation is the journals is often really technical and I was struggling to understand them. This page seems to have the simplest explanation, and includes two diagrams. I really like the illustration of NTL9's MSM, should I pursuit getting a Creative Commons license on that? • Jesse V.(talk) 20:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Getting one of the MSM illustrations in the What do MSMs look like? section of that page freely licensed would be superb. However, I'm not optimistic about the chances of that happening, since both images are in articles copyrighted by the American Chemical Society. But asking couldn't hurt. The more efficient path would likely to be to get the PDB files for the various transitions states for the "MSM for the ACBP protein" image (on the right), quickly loading and exporting images of them in PyMOL, then drawing lines between them in such a way that the resulting image is notably different than the copyrighted version. If you could ask a Folding@home researcher for those PDBs then I could take it from there. If you can't get the PDB files, then substituting the transition state images with letters or numbers seems like the next best alternative. Emw (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I sent an email to the ACS about the NTL9 MSM image, and another email to Drs. Voelz and Bowman for the PDB files for the other protein. I have no experience with PyMOL or anything like that. • Jesse V.(talk) 00:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday afternoon Dr. Voelz replied saying "Recreating a graph with new PDBs seems like a lot of work. Attached is a "side view" version of the ACBP TPT diagram, that should avoid any copyright issues. Let me know if this works for you." and he attached this PDF. I have yet to receive a response from the ACS about the NTL9 MSM image though. • Jesse V.(talk) 07:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I got a free copyright from him, and the image has been added to the Project Significance section. • Jesse V.(talk) 20:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The MSM image is really great! I think it improves the article a lot, and also provides a comprehension aid and visual enrichment of the corresponding paragraph. Emw (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2010, Folding@home researcher Greg Bowman was awarded the Thomas Kuhn Paradigm Shift Award from the American Chemical Society for the instrumental development of the open-source MSMBuilder software and for attaining quantitative agreement between theory and experiment."
Please cite the assertion that MSMBuilder is open source with a link to the source code. Emw (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. • Jesse V.(talk) 18:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Biomedical research
  • "Protein folding is normally tightly regulated to ensure that it proceeds smoothly."
This statement strikes me as incorrect. To my understanding, "regulation" in the context of protein folding implies some involvement of chaperone proteins, but most proteins fold spontaneously and without the aid of chaperones. Changing "normally" to "often" would make this more correct to my knowledge, but I'm not sure if "sometimes" might be most correct. If you can't find a reliable source stating whether "normally", "often" or "sometimes" is most accurate to describe how frequently protein folding is regulated (I haven't been able to find one), then this sounds like a question for http://biology.stackexchange.com. Or maybe another lead sentence for this section would work. Emw (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that does seem to contradict the article's earlier statements. I've improved the line while staying within the provided sources. • Jesse V.(talk) 00:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The revised sentence ("Protein folding often spontaneously but can be tightly regulated to ensure that it proceeds smoothly.") seems clunky. I think the second sentence is a better introduction to the section, though listing 11 diseases there seems excessive. Here's my proposed revision; let me know what you think: "Protein misfolding can contribute to a variety of diseases including Alzheimer's disease, cancer, cystic fibrosis, Huntington's disease, sickle-cell anemia, and type II diabetes.[11][30][31] Once protein misfolding is better understood, therapies could be developed that augment cells' natural ability to regulate protein folding. Such therapies could use engineered molecules to alter the production of a certain protein, help destroy a misfolded protein, or assist in the folding process." Emw (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That looks a lot better. I replaced the current text with that, though I added Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease since it's a big player. I also changed "can contribute" to "can result" and "could be developed" to "can be developed". Thanks. • Jesse V.(talk) 17:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Pande lab is a non-profit organization and does not sell the results generated by Folding@home."
The first part of this sentence is imprecise. Stanford University, not the Pande lab, is the 501(c)(3) non-profit entity (see http://folding.stanford.edu/English/Donate). I think wording like the following would be accurate: "The Pande lab is part of Stanford University, a non-profit entity, and does not sell the results generated by Folding@home." Emw (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. • Jesse V.(talk) 00:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2011 they released the open-source Copernicus software..."
Please cite this with a link to the source code. Emw (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a citation to the paper, which says in its abstract that it has a "publicly available implementation". • Jesse V.(talk) 20:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my suggestion is to add a citation to publicly available implementation, i.e. its source code. Emw (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it's on a git server. Closest I got was [20], which I added. • Jesse V.(talk) 04:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The full publications are available online from an academic library."
The fact that relevant journal publications are available online from an academic library holds for virtually all subjects represented on Wikipedia, and I haven't seen it mentioned in any other featured articles. So I think this is unnecessary detail and should be removed. Emw (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Removed. • Jesse V.(talk) 20:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It accounts for more than half of all cases of dementia, and as of 2008 it affects more than 24 million people worldwide, with 4.6 million new cases reported each year."
The sentence previous to the one above seems like enough context. I really like that each section is put into context, but I think there's often a little too much background information. This amount of exposition ends up making 'Biomedical research' lean too much toward being a primer on the various diseases rather than a discussion about what Folding@home is doing in biomedical research on those diseases. Emw (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed most of that statement. • Jesse V.(talk) 20:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its exact cause remains unknown, but the disease is identified as a protein misfolding disease and is associated with toxic aggregations of the amyloid beta (Aβ) peptide, a fragment of the larger amyloid precursor protein. High concentrations of misfolded Aβ42 causes protein oligomer growth leading to aggregation that in turn contributes to Aβ misfolding. This cyclic process appears to be toxic and leads to neuronal cell death. The oligomer aggregates then collect into dense nontoxic formations known as senile plaques, a pathological marker of Alzheimer's.[45][46][47] Due to the heterogeneous nature of Aβ oligomer aggregates, experimental techniques such as X-ray crystallography and NMR have had difficulty characterizing their structures. Moreover, atomistic simulations are extremely computationally demanding due to their size and complexity."
I think this level of jargon and detail on the etiology of Alzheimer's unnecessarily bogs down almost all readers, and distracts from the overall subject of the article. Some content seems rather extraneous, and removable. I suggest something simpler and more focused, along the lines of the following:
"Its exact cause remains unknown, but the disease is identified as a protein misfolding disease. Alzheimer's is associated with toxic aggregations of the amyloid beta (Aβ) peptide, which are caused by Aβ misfolding and clumping together with other Aβ peptides. These Aβ aggregates eventually grow big enough to form significantly larger senile plaques, a key marker of Alzheimer's disease." Emw (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the details better belong in the AD article. It should be much simpler now like you suggested. • Jesse V.(talk) 19:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made some changes to the Alzheimer's section. Please review this diff against the references for accuracy. In particular, in the following sentence, does the cited literature indicate that it would be permissible to interchange "dynamics of AB" and "folding of AB"?: "Folding@home simulated the dynamics of Aβ in atomic detail over timescales of the order of tens of seconds. This was significant because previous studies were only able to simulate about 10 microseconds—in other words, Folding@home was able to simulate Aβ folding for six orders of magnitude longer than had previously been possible." If so, I think it would be more much preferable to substitute "dynamics" for "folding", or maybe say "folding dynamics". (I ask to ensure they weren't looking at some other non-folding types of molecular dynamics.) Emw (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence should have been more specific. (I have fixed this.) It was simulating the dynamics of Aβ aggregation, not folding. • Jesse V.(talk) 19:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption of the image in the Alzheimer's disease section should mention how Folding@home relates to the image, and focus less on explaining the steps in the molecular development of the disease. Emw (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added some information. • Jesse V.(talk) 19:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and in 2010, Folding@home researcher Veena Thomas proposed a novel therapeutic strategy for Huntington's which may be funded by the National Institutes of Health."
Has there been an update on the status of this proposal? Emw (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. There's no further updates in the citation and there's been no announcements in the blog about it. I suppose I could email Veena Thomas about it, but then I couldn't cite the reply. • Jesse V.(talk) 19:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for checking. Although the potential research is likely interesting with regard to the subsection, I think the facts that the research proposal has presumably not been funded and hasn't been updated in two years means that this content doesn't meet the encyclopedia's notability standards. Emw (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it has been funded and there has been an update, but AFAIK there hasn't been anything published. What you said makes sense, so I removed the statement. • Jesse V.(talk) 05:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2004, Folding@home was used to perform the first molecular dynamics study of the refolding of p53's protein dimer in explicit water which revealed insights that were previously unobtainable..."
I think the background discussion that preceeds the sentence should be trimmed to make room for some brief mention of what a 'protein dimer' is an how it relates to p53; same for 'explicit water'. Also, a brief mention of what those previously unobtainable insights were would be good. Emw (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike you I don't have a background in biochemistry or computational biology, so I'm struggling to figure out key statements like "Dimerization of the p53 oligomerization domain involves coupled folding and binding of monomers". I completed most of what you said, but please feel free to help with the background when you have a moment. • Jesse V.(talk) 19:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the Virus section falls into the same issue as the Alzheimer's disease section: too much background discussion of the disease. The 9-sentence paragraph goes into 7 sentences of detailed discussion about the molecular biology and molecular dynamics of viruses and membrane fusion. I suggest trimming the background discussion in this section to about half of what it currently is. Emw (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did some trimming and rewording. • Jesse V.(talk) 19:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of the Viruses section has one sentence about HIV research in the middle of a paragraph about influenza research. I suggest improving the focus of the second paragraph by making it only about influenza, e.g. by somehow integrating the sentence about HIV into the first paragraph, or removing it altogether. If the HIV sentence needs to be kept and can't be incorporated nicely into the first paragraph, then I'd suggest expanding the article's coverage of HIV research into a new paragraph. Emw (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I incorporated the sentence into the first paragraph and did a bit of copyediting there too. • Jesse V.(talk) 18:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Participation
  • "In 2007 Guinness recognized Folding@home as the most powerful distributed computing network in the world."
Does Guinness still assign Folding@home that distinction? In any case, I think this statement should be qualified by the fact that Folding@home is no longer the most powerful distributed computing network. The figures are made available in subsequent sentences for readers to deduce that, but I think it should be made apparent up front. Any idea/sources on when this swap of most powerful distributed computing network occurred? Emw (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I suppose they need to reevaluate, if they're even aware that they need to. Can you be more specific as to which distributed computing project you think is more powerful? The only one I can think of is Bitcoin, which does purely integer operations and so by definition its FLoating-point Operations Per Second measurement is precisely zero, not 274.72 petaFLOPS as bitcoinwatch.com claims. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50720.0 was top on the list in Google for me. • Jesse V.(talk) 05:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. Reading again, I was reminded that BOINC is not itself a distributed computing project, but rather just a platform for such projects. The Bitcoin note is interesting. At http://bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin/ I see "Network Hashrate PetaFLOPS 279.23", but I see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38064.msg550161#msg550161 that works through some apparent assumptions, which could be questionable, that made by bitcoincharts.com. So given the unclear/unestablished rank of the Bitcoin network's computational power, I think it makes for the claim in the article to remain. Emw (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As can be seen in the recently-added graph and the FLOPS table in this section, Folding@home's participation and overall computing performance have both decreased significantly in the last two years or so. This seems notable, and at least mentioning it in the article would offer a nice point of balance to what is otherwise a very positive article on the subject. If there has been any decent coverage of its possible causes, that would be good to include too. Emw (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that too, but I haven't been able to find any reliable causes for it. The closest I've got is a a foldingforum.org thread on the subject. Seasonal fluctuation was brought up a few times in that thread and in this thread, and I think that's a big part of it. If you look at the stats graphs, particularly the performance one, you'll see that an upward trend is starting. It's tied to the season and thus cyclic, and it may be that the project's participation and performance have stabilized overall, so that's why it looks like there's a big drop compared to the rest of the graph. • Jesse V.(talk) 20:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, the granularity of that newly-added performance graph reveals that the drop in performance is not as drastic as I was inferring from the participation graph -- eyeballing things, the annual maximum and minimum for 2012 performance are both roughly 10% lower than 2011, while number of active processors (participation) has decrease about 25% since the beginning of 2011. The graphs tell the story well enough. Emw (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Active participation in Folding@home has grown steadily since its launch."
The graph in the beginning of the same section contradicts this statement. Emw (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. • Jesse V.(talk) 05:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The new version of the sentence -- "Active participation in Folding@home increased steadily between its launch and 2010" -- seems slightly awkward by restricting itself to 2010 and not mentioning what's happened in the last two years or so. And the Folding@home participation over time graph shows a decrease between just before 2006 and just after 2007, and sputtering growth from around 4/2009 and the global maximum around 11/2010 -- not a steady increase. So the story is more complex than what's presented, and what's presented is still a little too rosy. Maybe this sentence can be be fixed in the same swoop as the fix for the previous point. Emw (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the sentence as 1) it didn't belong as the lead sentence of that paragraph and 2) it's an incorrect statement as you pointed out. The caption to the performance graph seems to do a better job anyway. • Jesse V.(talk) 20:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presenting the longitudinal performance data in tabular form as is done now is cumbersome and difficult to analyze. I think it would be immensely better to put into a graph. The graph here would probably work well. Emw (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. • Jesse V.(talk) 20:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Software:
  • "Specialized molecular dynamics programs, referred to as "FahCores" and often abbreviated "cores", perform the calculations on the work unit behind the scenes."
"Behind the scenes" sounds too colloquial to me, especially given the degree of jargon the rest of the article (fairly reasonably) uses. I'd stick with "as a background process", which will be just about as self-explanatory for the vast majority of users, but also more technically correct. Same with the phrase's usage in the 'Clients' subsection. Emw (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. • Jesse V.(talk) 05:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Folding@home software developers have put significant work into minimizing security issues." .... "Thus from a security standpoint it behaves in a similar fashion to a web browser, but is even more secure."
The sources cited for these statements are either from people directly associated with Folding@home or from a community-edited wiki. I understand that such entities are often the only sources to get some kinds of information, but I don't think security information should be one of those kinds. Please either find conventional, independent, reliable third-party sources for these sentences or substantially temper/remove them. Emw (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see; those are opinions/claims that I agree should come from sources stronger than F@h staff. I rewrote the paragraph and presented facts instead. Until I can find a reliable source for statements like those, I'll let the readers draw their own conclusions however they will. • Jesse V.(talk) 20:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "BOINC's fixed architecture limits the types of project it can accommodate and thus was not appropriate for Folding@home."
I think this would be worth expanding on a bit. For example, what is the meaning of "fixed architecture" here? Is it still in place at BOINC? If not, then I think putting "limits" should be put in the past tense. How is/was it limiting, inappropriate and unworkable? Emw (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would expand if I could. The publication only says "The Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC) [16] now used by SETI@home and many others, launched in 2002. BOINC provides a standard client, server, and statistics system, but with this fixed architecture comes limitations on the types of projects it can accommodate." I was unable to find any additional information, so since I can't elaborate on the claim I felt it was appropriate to remove the line, but I did add a detail that F@h utilizes Cosm. • Jesse V.(talk) 22:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Folding@home and distributed.net use the Cosm libraries"
This newly-added sentence about Cosm needs a bit of context. Briefly, what does Folding@home use Cosm for? I'd also suggest removing the mention of distributed.net; it's not mentioned anywhere else in the article, and seems superfluous. Emw (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I only found another reference, which had only a little additional information. Nevertheless, I've used it to improve the sentence as well as I could. The word "cosm" appears briefly in the F@h client logs, but I don't know why. • Jesse V.(talk) 20:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While this approach is not only scientifically valuable, the resulting publications would not have been possible without this computing power."
Please improve this sentence's syntax. Also, "resulting publications" is vague -- which ones are being talked about? Emw (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I copyedited the whole paragraph and I gave specifics about the paper that the blog post was talking about. • Jesse V.(talk) 18:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 'scientific value' sentence looks good. However, the summary of the Journal of Molecular Biology paper was impenetrable for non-experts. Please review this diff and let me know if my attempt at simplification more or less preserves the original version's point. Emw (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Your version looks good as far as I can tell. Technically they were simulating HP-35 NleNle, "a variant of the villin headpiece subdomain". • Jesse V.(talk) 20:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was the first time a distributed computing project had utilized MPI, as it had previously been reserved only for supercomputers, and SMP1 represented a landmark in the simulation of protein folding."
This sentence could be improved in a few ways. The first problem is that it's a run-on. The SMP1 clause seems gratuitous. And I don't think MPI was "reserved" for supercomputers, since A) it has historically been commonly used in much smaller, non-supercomputer clusters, and B) noone was reserving MPI for supercomputers, it had simply not been implemented in a distributed computing project. Emw (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the supercomputer clause because you're right. The SMP1 clause is only cited to Dr. Pande, and such a bold statement would need a third-party reference. • Jesse V.(talk) 18:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The user typically interacts with V7's open-source GUI, known as FAHControl."
Please cite the open-source assertion with a link to the source code for the FAHControl GUI. Emw (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are several solid references supporting this: [21], [22], and [23]. I added in the last one, but I can swap it out for one of the others if there's a necessity to link to the source code. • Jesse V.(talk) 18:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think a direct link to the source code is the most appropriate citation for assertions that software is open source, so I'd include a link to https://fah-web.stanford.edu/svn/pub/trunk/control/. Conveniently, that resource also shows the actual GPL license in LICENSE.txt. Emw (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've incorporated the link to the source code. Emw (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed. Thanks! • Jesse V.(talk) 20:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Emw: This is a well-written and impressively comprehensive article. It does a good job of combining coverage of different domains the subject encompasses -- from the molecular biology of diseases and protein folding to the software and performance aspects of distributed computing -- into a coherent narrative. Jesse has done a commendable job of building the article from a basic state to its current developed form over more than a year of work. It looks like some comments from other reviewers are still being worked through, but for me this article has clearly passed the threshold of quality needed to be considered one of Wikipedia's best articles. I support promoting Folding@home to featured article status. Emw (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from EdJohnston: I have some relevant background, having studied biophysics years ago and written programs to simulate polypeptide conformations.

  • General comments
  • This is an important topic and deserves an article of FA quality. At present the prose gets boosterish in places, and it may repeat some of its favorite themes too often: (a) how hard it is to simulate large proteins in realistic detail, (b) how fast this particular simulator is. In my opinion the importance of the work will shine through better if we use more neutral prose. Also, it will save the reader from getting fatigued by repetition if we can find a way to make each important point just once. I would like to find reliable sources for all the faster-than or invented-first claims or drop them from the article. Did they pioneer the use of the PlayStation 3? In a quick look, I couldn't find an external source for that. I know that Sony worked with the project, and that ought to be mentioned.
  • The article could stand to be 20% shorter. I agree with Emw's point about too much background information. I would prune the disease sections to focus in on one or two areas where the project has generated peer-reviewed results that indicate practical importance. One of these is the 'superkine,' the variant of Interleukin-2 that has potential in cancer treatment and has been licensed for investigation by a drug company. It will take a while to collect all my notes, but I'd like to begin with a suggested revision of the lead. More explanation of these proposed changes will follow. EdJohnston (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help with the prose. I would have liked to have other editors help me with this article, but that's how it is sometimes. If you check the PlayStation 3 section, it mentions the collaboration between Sony and the Pande lab, and citation 176 (the Post-Gazette.com one) confirms that F@h pioneered the use of PS3s. Numerous scientists are using Folding@home to do disease research, and some of them work on one particular disease, so overall F@h has helped generate results in a number of areas. You raise a good point about focusing on practical importance; I haven't included sections on everything in the Diseases FAQ but I tried to focus on some of the bigger ones per WP:DUE. I'd like to be concise, but I want to make sure that there's enough explanatory information, though I realize that more can be found in the articles on each disease. • Jesse V.(talk) 20:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed new draft of the lead

Folding@home (FAH or F@h) is a distributed computing project for simulation of protein folding, computational drug design, and other molecular dynamics for disease research. Folding@home is powered by the idle processing resources of thousands of personal computers and PlayStation 3s from volunteers who have installed the software on these systems. The project primarily attempts to determine the mechanisms of protein folding (the process by which proteins reach their final three-dimensional structure) and the causes of protein misfolding. This is of significant academic interest and has major has implications for medical research into Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease and cancer., and many forms of cancer, among other diseases. To a lesser extent, Folding@home also tries to predict a protein's final structure and determine how other molecules may interact with it, which has applications in drug design The program may be useful in drug design, since it can simulate the steps of protein-ligand docking. Folding@home is developed and operated by the Pande laboratory at Stanford University, under the leadership of Vijay Pande. [1]

The project uses statistical simulation methodology that represents a paradigm shift from traditional computational approaches. ref name="10.1016/j.ymeth.2010.06.002"/ distributed parallel calculations which are combined statistically to determine the folding behavior of the protein. As part of the project's client-server distributed computing architecture, the volunteered machines receive simulation work units, complete them, and return them to database servers where they are compiled into an overall simulation. Volunteers can track their contributions on the Folding@home website, which can make participation competitive and encourages long-term involvement. The project has pioneered the uses of GPUs, PlayStation 3s, and Message Passing Interface (used for computing on multi-core processors) for distributed computing and scientific research. The project has employed PlayStation 3s and GPUs and pressed into service the multi-core processors that are now found on many client machines for the benefit of scientific research.

Folding@home remains one of the world's fastest computing systems, The combined power of the machines in the Folding@home network compares favorably with a supercomputer and currently operates at a computational performance nearly equal to almost equals the total power of all distributed computing projects under BOINC combined. The project is also the world's most powerful molecular dynamics simulator. This performance from its large-scale computing network has allowed researchers to run computationally expensive atomic-level simulations thousands of times longer than previously achieved. Since its launch on October 1, 2000, the Pande lab has produced 100 scientific research papers as a direct result of the project.[2] These simulations have demonstrated accuracy compared to experimental observations.[7][8] The Folding@home simulator has produced folding times and equilibrium constants that can be compared with experiment [3]

- EdJohnston (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's suggested to not use templates on FAC pages, so I'd suggest putting the suggestion either in hidden text or fully visible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the collapse box. When you say 'no templates' do you also mean no citation templates? And what about the green highlighting? If you think more reformatting of my post is needed, please go ahead. Thx, EdJohnston (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above there is "Use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) is discouraged, as they slow down the page load time.". I don't think the green text is a problem as it's not achieved graphically. The refs probably aren't needed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposed lead is interesting, but I see several disadvantages. The current lead more accurately summarizes the body, and I think has a better tone. "The program may be useful in drug design, since it can simulate the steps of protein-ligand docking" sounds a bit like WP:OR, whereas the current lead uses more factual phrasing to describe F@h's work in drug design. The paradigm shift statement is confirmed by the contents of the in-line citation (since distributed computing is a unique/unusual approach to the protein folding problem) and the award described in the article. It does use a client-server architecture, that should be clear from the body, but if it's necessary to add a citation then it is confirmed in "Lessons From Eight Years of Volunteer Distributed Computing". I think the "Pressing into service" phrase could be changed for something else, because the phrase reminds me of slavery. However, the last line of your proposed lead is interesting, though the conformational states from the MSM can also favorably compare to experiment. I will have to check some publications to be sure of the details. • Jesse V.(talk) 03:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I replied to Emw below, I have added details to that last statement in the lead. • Jesse V.(talk) 04:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the lead was reworked a bit by Montanabw, who knows very little about this subject. This discussion is related. • Jesse V.(talk) 18:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest omitting the 'paradigm shift' statement from the lead
"The project uses statistical simulation methodology that represents a paradigm shift from traditional computational approaches.[4]"
This sentence is given in the lead as a summary of the fuller version in the body of the article:
"Folding@home researcher Greg Bowman was awarded the 2010 Kuhn Paradigm Shift Award from the American Chemical Society (ACS) for his talk on two paradigm shifts resulting from Folding@home: 1) the new methods that Folding@home uses to simulate protein folding, misfolding, etc, and 2) the results themselves, which suggest a significant change in protein folding theory."
This award carries a $1,000 award from the ACS, and there were five applicants for the award. WP does not have a free-standing article on this award, and does not have a list of winners of this award anywhere. There is no list kept on ACS's web site. There does not seem to be any award citation published by ACS. Every year somebody is going to win the 'paradigm shift' award so I'm not sure how much stock we should put in this. (It's like the 'best revolution of 2010'). The fullest statement of this seems to be a reprinted press release from ACS. The wording included in our article (as quoted above) says 'a significant change in protein folding theory' but I can't even find those words in the probable ACS press release, and not in any reliable source. Material like this, and the phrase "paradigm shift", may strike the reader as promotional and buzzwordy. Bowman's work is clearly important but maybe we can find other ways of showing that. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've brought up some interesting points, I hadn't really thought about it that way before. The exact quote from the body of the article is In 2010, Folding@home researcher Greg Bowman was awarded the Thomas Kuhn Paradigm Shift Award from the American Chemical Society for the instrumental development of the open-source MSMBuilder software and for attaining quantitative agreement between theory and experiment.[25] which summarizes the source's quote you provided above. A number of months ago I emailed Bowman and the ACS asking for the original source of the phrasing, but IIRC I was told that it doesn't exist on the ACS website anymore and this might be the best source. SimTK is a completely different organization than the Pande lab or Stanford University. One might even consider it third-party. I'll look more into his work. • Jesse V.(talk) 03:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest omitting 'demonstrated accuracy compared to experimental observations' from the lead:
The sentence is a bit vague, and the extent of 'demonstrated accuracy' remains to be determined. I suggested in my above draft that this be replaced by "The Folding@home simulator has produced folding times and equilibrium constants that can be compared to experiment". As a reference for this I propose the Nature paper, Snow, Nguyen, Pande and Gruebele (2002), "Absolute comparison of simulated and experimental protein-folding dynamics". This the most heavily cited paper from the Pande group, is well argued, and tries to link theory and experiment in close detail. Careful reading might show that the 2002 paper can support a stronger statement than just 'can be compared to experiment', but I haven't done that yet. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I too will have to review the literature and make that statement more specific as you suggest. • Jesse V.(talk) 03:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some details to that statement. • Jesse V.(talk) 04:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest reducing or combining some of the repetitious speed-power claims: (including here the claims that simulating protein folding is difficult)
Here are some of the repeated claims (maybe not all of these are redundant).
  • "Folding@home remains one of the world's fastest computing systems"
  • "currently operates at a computational performance nearly equal to all distributed computing projects under BOINC combined"
  • "The project is also the world's most powerful molecular dynamics simulator."
  • "..allowed researchers to run computationally expensive atomic-level simulations thousands of times longer than previously achieved."
  • "all-atom molecular dynamics simulations have been severely limited in the timescales which they can study."
  • "Between 2000 and 2010, the timescales over which Folding@home simulates protein folding have increased by six orders of magnitude" -- actually this claim is very interesting and may deserve to be expanded and fully sourced. I wouldn't propose dropping this claim. At present it is sourced only to the project's blog.
  • "Using the Markov state model approach, Folding@home achieves strong scaling across its user base and gains a near-linear speedup for every additional processor"
  • "This large and powerful network allows Folding@home to do work not possible any other way."
  • "These sites are attractive drug targets, but locating them is very computationally expensive."
The first two are combined in the lead, but I remember trying to append the third statement but it sounded like a run-on sentence that way. I'll look around for a a better source for the claim about a sixfold increase in simulation timescales, but if you look at the blog post itself, there is supporting numerical data from which the claim is fairly easy to see. I have added some more information to that statement. These are all related statements, but they all say different things. They describe F@h's prominence and why it is important in what it is doing. I'm not sure how I could combine them without damaging the prose, and they seem like important information to me. • Jesse V.(talk) 03:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeated claims that the distributed approach is better than standalone supercomputers:
  • (referring to supercomputers:) "..strong scaling of traditional molecular simulations to these architectures is exceptionally difficult
  • "a limited number of long simulations are not sufficient for comprehensive views of protein folding" (a claim cited only to Pande-group papers)
  • "This complexity and timescale makes standard computer simulations exceptionally computationally demanding,.."
  • In the Notes section there are some qualifiers about LINPACK. They admit there that LINPACK 'more efficiently maps to supercomputer hardware.' It would be good to see some of these comparisons worked through in a balanced way, since F@H does have many advantages even after you allow for the LINPACK problem.
I'll look around for better sources. Note that the "Why China's New Supercomputer Is Only Technically the World's Fastest" citation used in the LINPACK section is entirely third-party. I'll work on improving these statements. • Jesse V.(talk) 03:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparison to other molecular systems:
This section can hopefully be expanded to include third-party assessments of F@H versus Anton and other systems. The majority of the references provided are to the papers of the Pande group or to the Folding@home project's own blog. Including outside references would be good. Anton is a very impressive project and it would be fair to mention some of Anton's best results in this paragraph.
There are several references to papers from Anton researchers. I agree Anton is very impressive, and the paragraph mentions some of Anton's simulation accomplishments and how long trajectories can be useful. • Jesse V.(talk) 20:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drop the statements about internal project events and predictions of possible future activities:
  • "The goal of the first five years of the project was to make significant advances in understanding folding, while the current goal is to understand misfolding and related disease, especially Alzheimer's disease." Regardless of goals, it would be better to report actual peer-reviewed contributions. If you check the citation counts, the citing authors greatly appreciate the 'nuts-and-bolts' work of F@H in better simulation methods but F@H's disease-related work is not heavily cited as yet.
  • "Following these studies, the Pande lab expanded their efforts to other p53-related diseases.."
  • "This strategy could be used to bring the results from Folding@home directly to a therapeutic drug."
  • "From simulations of this protein, they hope to accelerate research efforts to modify it to identify other diseases or to bind to drugs"
  • "The Pande lab is focusing their research on Alzheimer's with the goal of predicting the aggregate structure and how it develops for drug design approaches as well as developing methods to stop the aggregation process"
  • "Later that year, Folding@home began simulations of various Aβ fragments in order to determine how various natural enzymes affect the structure and folding of Aβ". This statement is cited only to internal project documents.
  • "Although researchers have used Folding@home to study collagen folding and misfolding, the interest stands as a pilot project compared to Alzheimer's and Huntington's research." This statement is cited only to the project's own web site.
  • "As of 2012, Folding@home continues to simulate the folding and interactions of hemagglutinin, complementing experimental studies at the University of Virginia." This is cited only to the project's own web site.
  • "They hope to be better able to design drugs to deactivate them." Cited only to the project's own web site.
  • "In 2007 the Pande lab received a grant to study and design new antibiotics"
  • "Ribosomal research has helped the Pande lab prepare for larger and more complex biomedical problems."
  • "In June 2011 Folding@home began additional sampling of an Anton simulation in an effort to better determine how its techniques compare to Anton's methods". Cited only to the project's own web site.
– EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. I removed many of them per WP:CRYSTAL. However, some of the statements you listed there are not opinions but rather non-controversial statements of fact, so I'm not convinced they should be removed. • Jesse V.(talk) 20:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hekerui

Hi and thanks for working on this interesting article. Some comments/suggestions:
Project significance
  • instead of using "stochastic" and linking to its meaning, why not run with the explanation itself - perhaps that would make the sentence clearer (it's not obvious to me how a stochastic folding makes using long simulations a challenge)
  • as it is now, understanding "discrete-time master equation" requires the user to leave the article twice, why not explain shortly - it would make the article more self-contained (I printed this out to read it and was left hanging)
  • it's not clear how the sentence about "near-linear parallelization" explains the previous sentence in other words, because it requires an explanation on its own (why near-linear?)
  • "pathways from the protein's phase space" remains puzzling because it is not explained, starting with what a phase space is
  • "... can represent these states at an arbitrary resolution." - arbitrary in what way? determined by the user's wish or determined by chance? the use of "can" implies the first choice, but I can't tell
  • "Between 2000 and 2010, the length ..." - this sentence belongs into the next paragraph contentwise, no?
  • "... for the instrumental development ..." - what "instrumental" is meant? as in "regarding the instruments" or as in "important" (then it can be removed)
  • Fixed.
  • I puzzled over that sentence for a while and tweaked it a little bit, but I'm not sure how to properly adjust it. "Discrete-time master equation" is the precise definition and it seems like it is, at least partially, explained in the lines preceding and following that line.
  • I double-checked the journal references and they use the term "linear", so I changed it to that instead. The phrase "non-linear" cames from folding.stanford.edu, and I'm not sure why they say that. Fixed.
  • Reworded.
  • Reworded.
  • I moved the sentence.
  • I removed the term. • Jesse V.(talk) 05:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Biomedical research
  • sentences two and three don't work together, two says therapies "can be" developed while three says they "could use" certain results of this project - one is left wondering whether therapies are really being developed or not
  • the sentences about "Computer-assisted drug design ..." and "The combination of computational molecular modeling ...." have a very similar content and sound repetitive, one could easily merge them
  • "Folding@home is dedicated to producing many results ..." - this sentence repeats information already given in more specifics before and sounds like promotional material
  • "... relationships to disease that are exceptionally difficult to observe ..." - "exceptionally" is POV unless attributed/explained
  • "For example, in 2011 Folding@home continued simulations of folding ..." - continued from what/when?
  • the text does not show why Protein L, which is not explained, was used or why it was chosen - if the sentence is about how good the predictions match experiment then being this specific only confuses, but if Protein L was an interesting case for some reason, this remains unclear
  • There is no guarantee that therapies will be developed. However, I did improve the wording a bit here, hopefully it is better.
  • So merged.
  • Yeah, I thought about it more and you're right that the statement isn't really all that necessary, so I removed it.
  • Term removed.
  • Fixed.
  • I tried a few rephrases of this sentence, but none seemed to work right. I'm not sure what to do here. • Jesse V.(talk) 05:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alzheimer's disease
  • "Moreover, atomistic simulations of Aβ aggregation ..." - "atomistic" suggests a connection to atomism, perhaps "atomic" would be better as this is used later on anyway (and is the name of the field of atomic physics)? -> on the other hand, would simulations like this not necessarily be molecular?
  • "Preventing Aβ aggregation using small molecules is regarded as ..." - by whom? this is a weasel word, we must be more specific
  • "Soon after that study into Aβ's folding, ..." - why not give the specific date/year?
  • "... from the test tube ..." - that part is gratuitous, the sentence works just the same without it
  • "oligomers" need to be explained, it's an uncommon term
Best regards Hekerui (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used "atomic" instead. Simulations are on the molecular level here.
  • Oh, I didn't realize it was a weasel word! I know that it needs to be fixed, but how do I that? I could name the authors or the publication, and that would be specific, but add an unusual amount of highlighting and the article doesn't do that anywhere else. Any ideas?
  • Good idea. I replaced that with a more specific date.
  • Removed.
  • Until recently, that paragraph contained details that helped explained oligomers, but the information was highly technical and was removed/summarized. I made some minor changes to the statement and wikilinked the term. This should make it a bit clearer. • Jesse V.(talk) 05:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the weasel word, I came up with two alternatives and I'm debating between them:
  1. In a literature review article, Drs. Naeem and Fazili regard the use of small molecules to prevent Aβ aggregation as a promising approach to the development of therapeutic drugs for treating Alzheimer's patients.
  2. Preventing Aβ aggregation using small molecules may be a promising approach to the development of therapeutic drugs for treating Alzheimer's patients.
  • I used the first one, as it was more lengthy but seemed the better choice. • Jesse V.(talk) 22:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a discussion with my English professor, I changed it to Preventing Aβ aggregation is a promising approach to the development of therapeutic drugs for Alzheimer's disease, according to Drs. Naeem and Fazili in a literature review article. • Jesse V.(talk) 01:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cancer
  • "Inhibiting these specific chaperones are seen as potential modes ..." - weird prose, I think it means "Inhibitions to these specific chaperones are seen as potential modes ...", otherwise the sentence doesn't make sense
  • the link to "antineoplastic" does not explain the word properly, so I suggest explaining or paraphrasing it right in this article
  • Engrailed homeodomain is not explained at all and one would have to read up on it outside of the article, which is a hassle - I wonder whether one can add a short explanation that does not disrupt the text flow? also, Engrailed should not be capitalized, or?
  • Yeah that prose is weird. I replaced it as you suggested.
  • Chemotherapy is a more common term so I used that instead.
  • I clarified it a bit. The main source capitalizes it, but since the engrailed (gene) article doesn't, I made it lowercase. • Jesse V.(talk) 16:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd propose more extensive revision of the Cancer section. It has three paragraphs. In my opinion the third paragraph, the one which mentions Interleukin 2, offers the major contribution by Folding@home. The p53 work published by Chong, Swope Pitera and Pande only gets 14 citations in Google Scholar. The last paragraph about Interleukin 2 describes work that led to licensing by a drug company and has received much more recognition by other scientists. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The cancer section contains a lot of noteworthy information, and IMO the article should describe the research areas that F@h has helped out in. When I do a Google Scholar search for the p53 paper, I see "cited by 31" numerous times. The first paragraph has the line "this was the first peer reviewed publication on cancer from a distributed computing project." and for that to make sense the paper is described and its background. Then the second paragraph is mainly about protein chaperones, also noteworthy when talking about cancer research. • Jesse V.(talk) 17:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Viruses
  • "... makes standard computer simulations exceptionally computationally demanding, so they are typically limited to ..." - what about this project? this sentence is too general, we ought to be specific
  • "Using Folding@home for detailed simulations of vesicle fusion ..." vesicle is an uncommon word, I suggest a short explanation
  • "... for measuring fusion intermediate topology." - does this mean the structure of intermediate stages? even knowing what topology is does not make this clear and I suggest a rewrite, otherwise readers must guess
  • I trimmed this sentence a bit, it should be more specific.
  • Rewrote.
  • Rewrote. • Jesse V.(talk) 22:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drug design
  • "... and causing a certain desired change." - vague, what change is it? a change to their function?
  • "... within 1.8 Å RMSD ..." - even if readers know what Ångström is, RMSD is an unexplained abbreviation - at the very least it needs to be introduced ("... within X root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) ..." or something similar)
  • "This may be important to ..." - "this" is not a good way to start a sentence following a sentence like the one that precedes it because it's not clear what is meant - if the closeness between prediction and experiment is meant, that should be plainly stated - also, who determined that this "may be important"? it's POV unless attributed
  • I added more specifics.
  • I expanded the abbreviation similar to your suggestion.
  • Fixed. • Jesse V.(talk) 22:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Software
  • SSE and API are an uncommon abbreviations that should be introduced imo
  • the explanation of work units starts with a reference to the client - maybe the structure would profit from putting the explanation for the client first (I don't think the flow would be inhibited by this, maybe others disagree?)
  • "Although limited in generality, this makes GPUs one ..." - what is meant with generality?
  • I added their names before their abbreviation. Now they read as "... with Streaming SIMD Extensions (SSE)." and "... two Application programming interface (API) levels ..."
  • The three components are related to each other. The references are needed to show the relationships. The "work unit" section refers briefly to the client, the "cores" refers to the work units and the client, and the "client" section refers to work units and the cores. Of the three, the client is the most intuitive component, since its just a regular program and all other distributed computing projects have clients. Thus a small reference to a client isn't a big deal. The current ordering of the section does seem like the more preferable option. When I wrote the section I really thought about the ordering.
  • I meant that GPUs only accelerate certain types of calculations and are different than general-purpose CPUs. This clause is actually redundant due to the preceding sentence, so I have removed it. • Jesse V.(talk) 01:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison to other molecular systems
  • a program calculating molecular systems is meant, not the molecular system itself. wouldn't something like "computing system" or "molecular simulators" be better?

Comments from Tonystewart14

Broken links
I noticed the following four links are broken:
  • "Nanomedicine Center for Protein Folding" in the third paragraph under "Alzheimer's disease".
  • "Protein Folding Center" in the second paragraph of "Cancer".
  • "5292-5309" (referring to PMID) in reference 25.
  • "the original" in reference 101.
If these could be fixed, either by changing the link destination or unlinking the text, it would be appreciated.
Emw put those redlinks in, and I'm not sure on the policy on redlinks in an FA-class article, which this article may soon be. Reference 101 should be kept because the archive link works while the original site is now gone. This is useful because the information contained in the reference is still preserved, so the citation still holds. Brilliant catch on Reference 25 though, I fixed that one. • Jesse V.(talk) 20:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redlinks are peachy in an FA. This is not the Indonesian Wikipedia (for example) where FA writers are expected to fill redlinks before nominating an FA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A red link is not a broken link, it just means the page has not been created yet. I think the occasional well-placed and relevant red link is a great invitation to readers to contribute to Wikipedia by creating a new article.
On a more concrete note, the "Nanomedicine Center for Protein Folding" and the "Protein Folding Center" seem very likely to refer to the same thing -- the Center for Protein Folding Machinery. I've corrected the name and removed the second (almost certainly redundant) red link. Emw (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes

  • Just from a quick scan for the moment, citation #30 doesn't seem to point anywhere. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well hello! That template should have been removed at the conclusion of the discussions in the Talk page. Fixed. • Jesse V.(talk) 00:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. • Jesse V.(talk) 05:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couple of housekeeping issues before we wrap this up. Firstly, you seem to be employing at least three styles of dash for the same purpose:
  1. Emdash with spaces: However, due to a protein's chemical properties or other factors, proteins may misfold — that is, fold down the wrong pathway and end up misshapen.
  2. Emdash without spaces: Due to the complexity of proteins' conformation space—the set of possible shapes a protein can take—and limitations in computational power, all-atom molecular dynamics simulations have been severely limited in the timescales which they can study.
  3. Endash with spaces: Instead, proteins spend the majority of their folding time – nearly 96% in some cases[20] – "waiting" in various intermediate conformational states...
All these dashes should be the same format, generally the second example is preferred (emdash without surrounding spaces). Pls check throughout the article.
  • The article contains quite a few duplicate links that should be dealt with. If you don't have Ucucha's dup link tool installed to highlight them all, you can find it here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Emdashes without spaces are now used consistently throughout the body of the article. Regarding the wikilinks, I have that script installed and have used it and AWB to reduce the number of duplicate wikilinks. However, please see this comment from Czarkoff in the GA review. I've thought about this too, and I agree that multiple wikilinks actually assist the reader. Nevertheless, I've tried to keep the duplicate links to a minimum though. • Jesse V.(talk) 05:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that duplicate links can occasionally be justified, particularly in longer articles, but suggest you walk through the article again. Just two examples: PlayStation 3s is linked twice in the lead, and Alzheimer's disease is linked twice in successive sections. This suggests that there'd be others that could be eliminated without unduly affecting the readers' comprehension... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I ran the script and double-checked all the duplications. I removed the ones that I felt were redundant or unnecessary. • Jesse V.(talk) 06:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 06:28, 22 October 2012 [24].

Blakeney Point[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turnip sawfly, Doggerland and Gentlemen Gunners appear in this latest stretch of the Norfolk coast. If I've missed your favourite clown beetle or bryophyte, let me know and I'll see if I can source it. Delegate permission has been given to initiate this FAC Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TBrandley: I am going to add my input here within two days. Ping me if I forget. :) Overall, I can say that the article looks good. TBrandley 18:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: the grammar in Rabbits adversely affect the fragile dune vegetation; when numbers are reduced by myxomatosis, the plants recover, although those that are toxic to rabbits, like ragwort then decline in abundance needs improving, I suggest two sentences as it's a fairly complex and separable idea in the second clause. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've slightly expanded to make it clear it's feeding and burrowing that damage the plants, split as suggested, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments, leaning to support: A charming article, which has the effect of making me want to visit the place which, I suppose, is feasible since it's less than 100 miles from my Lincolnshire stronghold. I have a number of minor prose issues, along with a few questions and suggestions:-

Lead–
  • "salt marsh" (singular) in second line reads as though it should be "salt marshes"
  • I'd lose the comma after "Special Interest", and I wonder if the word "additionally" is necessary
  • Lost comma, but kept "additionally" since SSSIs don't necessarily have any of these extra designations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This area..." → "The area..."?
  • "the land-based activities also put pressure..." The "also" looks redundant
  • This sentence is too long, and its punctuation is presently ambiguous: "This means that land is lost to the sea as the spit rolls forward, and the River Glaven has to be realigned when it is blocked by the shingle to prevent flooding of Cley village, Cley Marshes nature reserve and the reclaimed and environmentally important grazing pastures."
  • Land is lost to the sea as the spit rolls forward, and the River Glaven may become blocked by the advancing shingle. Since this can lead to flooding of Cley village, Cley Marshes nature reserve and the environmentally important reclaimed grazing pastures, the river has to be realigned every few decades. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • Redundant "actually"
  • From the map, Clay beach appears to be at the eastern end of the spit, so it might be better to describe the spit as running from west to east "before continuing onwards..." etc. Or perhaps I have just misunderstood the geography.
To 1912
  • In the first sentence the word "including" seems entirely redundant. History does not "include" archaeology; they are separate disciplines relating to the study of the past.
  • "partly because of the then prevailing very cold conditions" - clumsy wording? Suggest: "partly because of the very cold conditions that existed then,..."
  • "An "eye" is an area of higher ground in the marshes, dry enough to support buildings." Indeed, but the insertion of this explanatory information mid-paragraph is a bit disconcerting. Perhaps consider ways in which the paragraph could be reworded so that such information can be given without disrupting the prose flow.
  • "unusual second tower" - does "unusual refer to its design, or to its existence?
  • Tweaked to make it clear that it is the existence of the second tower that is unusual in a rural parish church Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
National Trust era
  • Who was the Point purchased from? There is no clear information about previous ownership.
  • What is a SSSI? The only previous mention is a link in the infobox. Also, the innitials NNR are not specifically tied to "National Nature Reserve"
Birds
  • I got a bit mixed up in the sentence: "The pastures have breeding Northern Lapwings, and patches of common reed hold species such as Sedge and Reed Warblers and Bearded Tits.2 I think it's partly the usage of "have" and "hold"; it might read better as: "The pastures contain breeding Northern Lapwings, and species such as Sedge and Reed Warblers and Bearded Tits are found in patches of common reed."
  • "may turn up" → "have turned up", since you follow with "...including [several examples]"
  • "only the second British record at that time". I can't make sense of this. What "British record" are you referring to?
Other animals
  • "decline in abundance" momentarily threw me; it sounded like an oxymoron (as in "slowed down rapidly") before I "got" it. Perhaps "quantity" rather than "abundance" would avoid misunderstanding. I'm also not clear why ragwort should decline along with a fall in the rabbit population.
  • Changed to less common, made it clear that the rabbit-proof toxic ragwort suffers from competition with edible plants when the rabbits aren't eating them Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is a hedgehog classed as a "rare mammal"?
  • Made it clearer that these are rare in the NNR. Salt marshes and sand dunes are among the few habitats hedgehogs can't cope with. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plants
  • "important": I would say "have an important function"
  • If possible, can you avoid inclusion of "pH" in the text, even linked? The linked article, written by robots for chemistry students, will be incomprehensible to most of your readers.
  • "There are introduced tree lupins near the Lifeboat House." Doesn't make sense grammatically, can't work it out.
  • expanded a bit to try to make it clear that these are non-native plants that have become established here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation
  • Figures in the first paragraph are confusing. On the one hand, 7.7 million day visitors and 5.5 million overnighters spent £122 million, and created the equivalent of 2,325 full-time jobs. But later, "The equivalent of 52 full-time jobs in the local area are estimated to result from the £2.45 million spent by the visiting public." To what do the latter figures refer?
  • tweaked to make it clearer that the first set refer to the north Norfolk coast as a whole, second to the Cley/Blakeney area Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Threats
  • "...several raised islands or "eyes" have already been lost to the sea as the beach has rolled over the saltmarsh." I'm not sure I entirely follow what that means but, more importantly, it is uncited information.
  • Looks as if I never added the ref, done now and expanded to clarify process Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Landward movement of the shingle meant that the channel of the Glaven, itself excavated in 1922 because an earlier, more northerly course was overwhelmed between Blakeney and Cley, was becoming blocked increasingly often by 2004." Difficult to read, partly because of the length of the subordinate clause, and also because "overwhelmed" is unexplained. Maybe rephrase?
  • I've rejigged, and moved the 1922 later in the paragraph as an example of a former realignmentJimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Attempting to hold back the shingle or breaching the spit to create a new outlet for the Glaven would be expensive and probably ineffective, and doing nothing would be environmentally damaging." These statements need to be expressed in terms of the Agency's beliefs: "It believed that..." etc

One general point. I was surprised that there is no reference in the article to the East Coast floods of 1953, which did severe damage in relatively nearby places such as Hunstanton, and I imagine would have had some effect on an exposed feature like Blakeney Point. Is there any record of what happened?

  • Yes, and I had a source. Added now, bit of a non-event compared to the other parts of the coast since no people, no farmland, just temporarily rearranges the spit, Added now. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't imagine the above will cause you much strife, and I look forward to fully supporting soon. (Note: feel free to ping me when you're done). Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments, Brian, I'm off to Norfolk for a couple of days, I'll respond when I get back Jimfbleak - talk to me? 04:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for review and comments, I think all done now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All fixes OK, and switched to support. Great article Brianboulton (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Allison 1986 or 1989? Murphy 2005 or 2009?
  • Missing bibliographic info for Birks 2003
  • No citations to Allen & Pye, East Anglia Coastal Group, Harrup & Redman, Norfolk Wildlife Trust, Robinson 1986
  • Fn25: check title caps. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all images OK (own work, Geography project and a copy of an old map) with author and source info provided.

  • Thanks for review. The image file and caption both give the date it was made, which is near enough Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from TBrandley moved to talk

  • Support on all criteria. TBrandley 23:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (from GermanJoe) - another nice article, close to FA, some prose nitpicking, scope issues and questions (Done):

  • lead - "The Point" ==> just checking, is that a common short form of its name? (if yes, you could add it as alternative informal name to the intro sentence)
  • "...by Francis Wall Oliver and a bird ringing programme initiated by Emma Turner." ==> here it may be obvious, but still - you could qualify persons immediately here with "botanist" and "ornithologist".
  • "The area has a long history of human occupation, [and the] ruins of a - " - those phrases would flow a little better with semicolon and no "and the" (both could be full sentences, the second part elaborates the first).
  • "... the river has to [] realigned every few decades." - is there a "be" missing?
  • To 1912 - "Norfolk has a long history of human occupation dating back to the Palaeolithic, [and significant archaeology]." ==> a country can't "have" archaelogy (the science). Maybe "has several significant archaeological sites" or "is the focus of significant archaeological studies".
  • "... 14th-to-16th-century ..." ==> looks strange (for a German atleast ...), should it be "14th- to 16th-century" or even "14th to 16th century"?
  • "The spit sheltered the Glaven ports, Blakeney, Cley-next-the-Sea and Wiveton, which were important medieval harbours." - the preceding para ends with very similar information. Any way to improve the information between those two sentences and remove the slight redundancy?
  • National Trust Area- "but some ["Gentleman Gunners"] hunted to collect rare birds" - i'd use a term with less implications and overtones (NPOV), without context this term doesn't help to understand the situation.
  • "Francis Oliver" should be "Francis Wall Oliver" (as introduced in lead, avoid varying names).
  • "The Point became a National Nature Reserve (NNR) in 1994,[29] and the coast from Holkham NNR to Salthouse, together with Scolt Head Island, is a Biosphere Reserve." - As the tense changes between both clauses, do you have a date for the second part ("... since yyyy")?
  • Birds - "Blakeney Point has been designated as one of the most important sites in Europe for nesting terns." - i'd specify in-text, designated by whom?
  • "The Point's location means that migrant birds may be found at the appropriate seasons, sometimes in huge numbers when the weather conditions are right." - needs rephrase. A bit clumsy start followed by awkward terms: "appropriate seasons", "right weather conditions". It's clear, what the sentence tries to say, but it should flow better. Also can you add here immediately, what's special about "The Point's location" to get the context?
  • Other Animals - "The Common Seals ..., so they are restricted to dry land for their first three or four weeks." ==> Is this detailed description specific for Blakeney Point? If it describes general worldwide seal features, it is out of scope here and should be completely removed (or moved to the sub-articles about seals).
  • Plants - "Glasswort is picked between May and September and sold locally as "samphire" [(pronounced "samfer")]." ==> Pronunciation info is out of scope. Move to samphire sub-article.
  • Recreation - "... and created the equivalent of 2,325 full-time jobs in that area." ==> that sounds a bit odd, actual visitors usually "secure" jobs, they don't "create" them. The creation is a longer process over years, meeting the growing demand. Could you double-check the source please?

Comprehensive, well-written and structured - just a little more polish needed. GermanJoe (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for review and comments. I've made these edits to address your concerns. Although the grey seal info is general, I've expanded it to show its relevance to observing the seals at this site. I've not given the Point as an alternative name, because it's only so within context. If we were in east Yorkshire, the Point would refer to Spurn Point Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - all listed points Done, thanks. The seal description works as, a bit detailed, additional background info, so no problem. GermanJoe (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am puzzled by the name of the page being "Blakeney Point". This page of the natures reserve's website indicates that the nature reserve is called "Blakeney National Nature Reserve" and the land spit is called "Blakeney Point". Presumably the spit is where there is dry land and presumably the nature reserve includes the nearby sea (areas covered with seawater, brackish water, or tidal zones). The introduction should explain the geography better and the size of the spit and the outlines of the reserve. The website says that the spit is a 3-mile long spit of sand and shingle and this is easy to find on this page of the nature reserve's website, but not in the introduction of the article. I think that further vagueness about the definitions of the Blackey Point spit and the nature reserve is found in the introduction of the article in this line; "Its main feature is a shingle spit, but it also includes salt marshes, sand dunes and reclaimed farmland." Presumably, from the definition of a spit, that salt marshes (not dry land) are not part of a spit or at least from the website, which says that the spit is shingle and sand. Snowman (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In accordance with normal practice, I've used the commonly used name for the site, as with my other nature reserve articles. The whole reserve site is consistently referred to as "Blakeney Point" in the literature, even when talking about the wet bits. The Salah ref (54) uses this name when discussing marine diatoms, and the first of the cited texts, Allison and Morley, also does, despite having sections on the botany of the salt marshes, marine invertebrates and the like. I've added the length to the lead, and tweaked the first para slightly. The NT figure is wrong. Although there is some scope for error in measuring the length of a dynamic spit, all the book sources give figures of more than 4 miles, and it's getting longer, not shorter, I suspect they have used the walk to the old lifeboat house, rather than the full length, but I don't know Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that your use of "Blackey Point" for the nature reserve may be acceptable or not, but what seems odd to me treating the natures reserve as being synonymous with the spit. I think that there are specific definitions in geology for various structures of a spit and I think that some geological terms are not used correctly here resulting in a confused introduction. In particular, I have just read that a salt marsh and an estuary behind a spit not part of the spit according to the largely unreferenced Wiki articles shoal and spit (landform); however, I presume that both the salt marsh and estuary are part of the nature reserve, since they contain a lot of vegetation suitable for birds. I am puzzled by inconsistencies. If the boundaries of the nature reserve and the spit are different, as linked Wiki articles seem to suggest, then I think that it would be better to use "Blackly Point Nature Reserve" or Blackly Point spit" when referring to one of them to reduce confusion. Snowman (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see from your recent edits that you largely agree with this. I have made some edits to the introduction. This is almost sorted out, but I remain unclear if the nature reserve includes the inter-tidal zones, mudflats, and an estuary (if there is one). Snowman (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added tidal mudflats to the lead, since these become vegetated to create the saltmarsh. The channel of the River Glaven is open water, so is not tidal salt marsh or mud flats, and is not part of the reserve. Estuary is misleading, since this includes the tidal areas and the river channel. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Morston Quay" is capitalised on the national trust's website. Should it be capitalised in the article? Snowman (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The village is Morston, so to me it should be Morston quay. However, you are correct to say that several sites capitalise the second word. I've rephrased as "the quay at Morston to avoid ambiguity Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... along with Holme Dunes and Holkham dunes, ...". To me this looks odd because "Dunes" is capitalised in the former but not the latter. Snowman (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevertheless, it's correct. Holme Dunes is the name of the reserve, Holkham dunes are the dunes at Holkham NNR Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omission: The Pedders Way goes through part of the nature reserve according to the map. The Norfolk Coast Path is near by too. Snowman (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could not find referenced text about the farmland, but I might have missed it. Snowman (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's mentioned in the lead as a habitat, and in Threats, but I agree that it's easy to miss, I've added a referenced sentence to para 2 of Description. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gather that "samphire" could refer to any of several plants. I think that it would be worthwhile to include the binomial name of the samphire species that are found in the reserve. Snowman (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've only used binomials for a few insects where I can't find an English name, and I don't want to do this for all the plants, but I've changed both mentions to "European glasswort", and the link goes to Salicornia europaea anyway, since that's how the plant project names its articles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 1 probably needs an in-line reference. Snowman (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have re-formatted using a template, which is probably more suitable here. Snowman (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • May be more informative if more ducks and wildfowl were listed instead of just two species. Snowman (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not convinced that "Threats" is the best name for the last section. Perhaps, "Coastal erosion" or something to suggest remodelling of the coastline would be better. Snowman (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "Coastal changes", since the spit is growing westwards, I don't think "erosion" is appropriate
  • Is the natural coastal erosion and remodelling process at the reserve affected by any sea wall developments far away? Movement of sand and shingle is a complicated process and protection of one portion of coast can cause inadequate sand and shingle drift that other parts of the coast might need. Snowman (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is complicated, but I haven't come across anything that suggests an effect such as you describe. Most of this coast is undefended other than by natural features such as cliffs, dunes or salt marshes, and the fairly limited sea defences at Sheringham and Cromer don't seem to get a mention as an influence. I've added the following, with a new ref The growth is thought to have been fuelled by the reclamation of the salt marshes along this coast in recent centuries, which removed a natural barrier to the movement of shingle. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, but have you considered making a map of the point using OSM? It would be good to see the point clearly. Quality is not prefect but you can tart up the map on paint and add labels of course.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking. I've added this map as an external link, and it's something I might well do next time around. I find map-making hard work, and I don't want to do a second map when I have spent a good deal of time doing the first. It wouldn't be just adding labels, the map would need extensive editing to show the habitats more accurately, add the reserve boundary, etc Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see. New text may need rephrasing slightly. I think that "fuelled" is confusing, since the power for coastal remodelling is from the weather (sun's heat) and tides (celestial mechanics). Perhaps use "accelerated" or "enhanced" instead. Snowman (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Map key: next to the pink (looks that colour on my screen) square it says "Roads and car parks". I can see the roads on the map, but I can not see any car parks. Why is this? Snowman (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was trying to limit the size of the legend, now made it clear that the circles are the carparks, one in each of the villages and one at Cley beach (all are outside the reserve, but it seemed harmless enough info) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That explains it. I assumed wrongly that the circles were villages. Snowman (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption says; "Samphire can be cooked like asparagus." If this is referenced in the article, then I have missed it. The caption is not helpful for people that do not know how to cook asparagus. Snowman (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • last para of "Plants" gives cooking, now removed cooking phrase from caption since I obviously can't put all that there Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it can be eaten without being cooked; I recall people on TV going for a walk and eating it raw and saying how good it is. Snowman (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support FA status. I edit bird pages so I may have a conflict of interest; nevertheless, I have tried to be objective. Snowman (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • thanks for review and support, I'll see if I can find I've added an RS for raw samphire Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Hi Jim, just one thing, I'd expect to see a citation closing off the first para under National Trust era. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, fell off when I split a paragraph a few days ago, glued back on now, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 00:01, 22 October 2012 [25].

Barber coinage[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. The Barber coinage, a dime, quarter and half, was struck for a quarter century beginning in 1892. Views as to its beauty, or lack thereof, were not unanimous, and are not today. Still, it marks a transition between the coins with classic motifs of the 19th century and the more modern 20th century issues.Wehwalt (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support It is my pleasure to make this my first post-hiatus support. I've gone over the article, making a few very minor fixes and rephrasings. I can also personallly vouch for the reliability of all the sources utilized therein. My only quibble would be the capitalization of "mint director". It is my belief that this should only be capitalized when part of a title (e.g., "Mint Director Leech"). That said, this is a fine article about a decidedly unpopular coin series, and I applaud Wehwalt for taking it on!-RHM22 (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, and welcome back. Perhaps "Mint director", after all, he did not direct just one mint, but a minimum of three.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think you're correct in considering "Mint" to be a proper noun in this case.-RHM22 (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • Refs 31 and 34 appear to overlap
  • Likewise 52 and 53
  • All the Lange refs appear to be the 2006 book, none to the online article

Spotchecks carried out. No other sources issues that I can see. Brianboulton (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I gave lengthy comments at the peer review, which were satisfactorily answered and in most cases adopted. This is at least the 20th of US coinage articles that I have reviewed and seen at FAC. It is an area for which, like medieval bishops, Wikipedia is becoming known as the best source. Keep up the good work! Brianboulton (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those. I don't consider 8-9 to be overlapping 8 alone, I try to give the reader the most specific cite I can and there is no point in having them off on page 9 when nothing comes from page 9. Actually fn 55 is from the website. Thanks for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I missed 55 - sorry. Brianboulton (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Happy enough with this one on a few read-throughs; prose and comprehensiveness seem suitable. Not sure about the placement of File:First Barber pattern.png, though; it squeezes the text between two images which generally doesn't look too great, and is the only image aligned to the left, with a plethora on the right, so it looks a little out of place too. However, I'm at a loss for a solution; I'd suggest a multiple image template with the other pattern coin, but vertical space seems to be at a premium. If it's not an issue for other reviews I'm happy enough to let it drop, though. Another interesting article in one of our strongest fields. GRAPPLE X 21:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll play with it, but I looked at it too and didn't see a better way. Not all of the images can be re-arranged, some need to be where they are. Thanks for the review, appreciate it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images review

Most of the images are fine, with properly licensed photographs of public domain objects. I have questions on two of the images:

That's one of Bobby131313's coin images. He retired. He was careless about licenses, and I questioned it on a noticeboard some time ago, and the feeling was that given the sheer number of images he contributed, that uploading an image he took himself was indicative of an intent to have us use it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the uploader is the person who took the picture, the licensing is okay on this. -- Dianna (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to a US government image, based on the credit in the Lange book to the Denver Mint.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the template on the original image as well. Images have now all been verified -- Dianna (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for that. I'm not aware of any impediments to promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just add my thanks to User:BrandonBigheart for his glorious images.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:20, 21 October 2012 [26].

Halo: Reach[edit]

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An old GA that has been significantly expanded, and hopefully is comprehensible to those who aren't die-hard fans thanks to revisions in the gameplay section. Thanks in advance for reviews, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Crisco 1492
  • File:Halo- Reach box art.png is solid
  • File:Halo reach-lnos.png - don't see how what is in the image is being discussed in text. (Most?) readers will understand what a HUD is, so it's not contextually significant in my opinion.
  • File:Halo Reach-e3 2009 trailer.jpg - The Halo logo is rather prominent and may need to be blurred. I am not sure if it falls under de minimis or not. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd love more opinions from other reviewers on the free image and the non-free. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Images are good. The gameplay screenshot is necessary to show the games graphics and the characters, the HUD is a minor aspect in comparison. I consider the E3 presentation photo free use - the subject is the event, the logo is a small fraction of the overall image, and is distorted by the lighting. - hahnchen 15:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check for consistency in wikilinking - for example, you link Game Informer in FN11 but not 8
  • FN18: page formatting
  • FN20 should use dash not hyphen, check for others
  • Check formatting of quotes within titles
  • FN65 is a bare URL
  • FN77: check title. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try to do a review in the next few days. Just started reading the article, the lead looks good. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Ok, I've read through the article, looking mainly at prose and grammar issues. Not a whole lot to point out, good work.
  • In the first paragraph of "Gameplay" you have also in consecutive sentences, might want to cut one out.
  • Overall the use of the semicolon is good in the article, might want to double check that it isn't coming up too frequently though, for variation's sake.
  • Also about variation, you have consecutive sentences beginning with "Reach..." at the beginning of "Multiplayer".
  • "Players assume the role of an unnamed new addition to the team, and are identified by the call sign Noble Six." I don't think the comma's needed here.
  • "Halo: Reach was announced on June 1, 2009, accompanied by a trailer at the Microsoft Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) press conference.[22] An accompanying press release" A little repetition here, "accompanied ... accompanying"
  • "The works-in-progress they came up with were either touched up by O'Donnell, or sent back to be finished by their composer." Not sure about the comma here.
  • The beginning of the first paragraph of "Multiplayer beta" doesn't seem to flow very well to me.
  • "Microsoft claimed to be actively investigating the matter." This reads fairly skeptically to me, maybe "stated" instead of "claims"?
  • I think you can remove "previous" in "The agencies were previously involved with Halo 3's marketing." & " Bungie's previous multiplayer beta for Halo 3 had drawn 800,000 players."
  • " Despite this, he wrote that the game suffered from overly-generic archetypal characters, as players only spent enough time with a few members of Noble Team; "I almost forgot that Noble Four (Emile) even existed for a big chunk of the campaign, as I rarely saw him."" Maybe a colon instead of a semicolon here?
  • "Blake Morse wrote that the campaign "succeeded triumphantly" as Bungie's last title, owed to the omission of religious subtext and detracting features like a "telepathic plant that looks like something out of the Little Shop of Horrors"." I don't think you're supposed to link inside of quotes like that.
  • "Reach continued to hold the top place in North America.[80][81] Reach" You have "Reach" two times in fairly close succession here. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried to address all the above, although I'm not sure where in the MOS or otherwise it prohibits interquote linking. Thanks for the review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The MOS quote/link advice is here. I've had little luck getting people to abide by it though :) Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alright, this seems to be a FA-quality article. I made a few copyedits, all minor stuff. One of the best video game articles I've read on here--for such a long piece I couldn't find much to complain about. Hope you don't have to wait a month for your second support! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Leaning support, some mostly minor stuff:

  • In the gameplay section, I think "dogfight" and "power-ups" should be linked. Ditto "port" (Porting I think is the correct link) in the development section. Possibly "hackers" in the release section.
  • When a player dies, all their accumulated skulls are dropped. Do we use singular they?
  • "Chronicles fell apart..." Prefer something more formal sounding than a phrasal verb.
  • Who is Shi Kai Wang?
  • The last two very short paragraphs of the development section should probably be merged.
  • "O'Donnell wrote "somber, more visceral" music since the plot is character-driven and focuses on a planet that is already known in the universe to have fallen". Last part of that reads pretty weird. If I'm reading it right, something like "...focusses on a planet that is already known - in the fictional universe - to have fallen" would be clearer.
  • "touched up". Prefer "retouched" or something else less informal. Ditto "rolled out" and maybe "backed up" in the following section. Later, "rollout" is used. Is this a technical term? Similar "sorting out"; just "sorting" is probably preferable.
  • "slowed to a crawl", a bit cliché, and a metaphor really.
  • "Marketers focused their efforts on connecting with consumers via universal themes, rather than outdoing Halo 3's push". I don't really get this.
  • Xbox Live Marketplace is linked a couple of times in the Release section.
  • What's "retinal bloom"?
  • Not 100% sure about this one, but I think Game Revolution's use is questionable for this level. As I said in the System Shock 2 FAC, this site used to have a crappy fansite feel to it but gradually improved over a number of years (loads of discussion in the WP:VG archives that repeatedly judged it unreliable until recently). This I guess is from 2010, which is recent-ish, but I think not new enough to be considered top quality: Blake Morse is from the long and not so illustrious looking list of "past contributors". bridies (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Overall, this is very good. I have found a few items.
    • The first sentence in the second paragraph of the gameplay section: "Gameplay is more similar to Halo: Combat Evolved than later games in the series." I don't see that really expounded upon. It seems like a throwaway line. Perhaps you could add a sentence or two to make the connection between the two games clearer, or move up some of the specifics (e.g. shield and health depletion, assuming those are the similarities (I have only played the first Halo myself)) in order to connect the ideas a little more.
    • Next paragraph: "In Halo 3, player characters could carry single-use equipment power-ups that offer temporary offensive or defensive advantages." There's disagreement in verb tenses.
    • You put a lot of game concepts and items in quotes. My understanding is that italics are preferred for that type of thing, but it's not a big deal either way. However, the level editor Forge and the File Share feature are not in quotes. Not sure if you did that on purpose because those are separate pieces as opposed to in-game feature, or if it was just a slip.
      I'll have more later. Don't have time to read the whole thing right now. —Torchiest talkedits 02:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing my previous comments:
    • "The game opens with the planet Reach in ruins after its destruction by the Covenant" makes it sound like the planet itself was destroyed. Can you rephrase it?
      More forthcoming. —Torchiest talkedits 15:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doing some spotchecks on sources now.
    • In the reception section: "Nguyen noted that large amounts of on-screen action occasionally resulted in frame rate slowdowns.[96]" I don't really see that specifically supported in the review. The closest I could find is "Even excusing the minor flaws such as slight storytelling or framerate issues, is it safe to call Halo: Reach the best Halo game ever?" on page two of the review. Am I just missing it?
    • "Players assume the role of an unnamed new addition to the team identified by the call sign Noble Six.[21]" is not supported by the source, an analysis of a trailer. You can re-use another IGN source (legendary edition review) from this sentence: "In the game's campaign, which can be played alone or cooperatively, players assume the role of Noble Six, a supersoldier engaged in combat with an alien collective known as the Covenant.[4]"
    • Although I see how you put together the 2-3 million number, I don't see the second figure in the source supporting this sentence: " Bungie estimated between two and three million players for the upcoming Reach beta, compared to the 800,000 that participated in Halo 3's trial.[48]"
      I'll wait for replies on all of these issues before adding anything else for now. —Torchiest talkedits 22:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, sounds like some refs got disjointed. I'll take a look today. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 11:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okey dokey: the 2-3 million line is actually split up in the ref; two million is given in the lead, and then the upwards of three million in the interview below ("My expectation is it could be upwards of 3 million people.") I've moved the IGN citation, since it didn't support the Noble Six part of the paragraph, and added in another reference for that content. I cut the frame rate line, as it wasn't really germane to the section it was in, regardless. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, yes, my comment is a little ambiguous looking at it now. I meant I saw the two million and three million figures separately in the article and was okay with how you put them together, but I could not find the 800,000 figure in the source. —Torchiest talkedits 00:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, my bad. You're right, must have lost the ref along the way. I've added a Gamasutra link that has the 800,000 number. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I also had some comments before the source checks. You might have missed those in the wall of text that is this review. I'll try to do a few more spot checks in the next few hours too. —Torchiest talkedits 13:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spot checked all of the following claims and sources, and they're all okay both in matching the source and avoiding too-close paraphrasing:
    • "Halo: Reach was announced on June 1, 2009, accompanied by a trailer at the Microsoft Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) press conference.[23]"
    • "More than 2.7 million players participated in the beta, which lasted from May 3 to May 20.[52]"
    • "According to Jarrard, the team decided to have a much more "grandiose" marketing for Reach than that for ODST.[49]"
    • "In the United Kingdom, Reach's opening week was the fifth-best launch in the territory, beating Halo 3's debut by 20,000 units and ODST's by 200,000 units.[81]"
    • "Ben Kuchera of Ars Technica enjoyed the multiplayer component of Reach for its scope—"no matter how you play, you will find something to like."[115]"
      After my other concerns above are handled, I'll be ready to support. —Torchiest talkedits 17:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've moved up the gameplay sentence to connect it to the common elements described, and I've just cut all the quotations, as they were rather superfluous, especially for gametypes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this excellent work now. —Torchiest talkedits 22:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 09:48, 21 October 2012 [27].

God of War: Chains of Olympus[edit]

Nominator(s): JDC808 ♫ 02:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the page received a copy-edit as pointed out in the first FAC. JDC808 ♫ 02:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support The text is outstanding and the images appear to be in order. I am impressed. If I had to make a suggestion, I would strongly recommend that you use WebCite to archive your web citations. I initially resisted this idea over at my Folding@home FA nom, but I was persuaded that it would preserve link rot over the years. You cannot guarantee that the citations will be stable in five or ten years. See WP:WEBCITE. • Jesse V.(talk) 21:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll look into that. --JDC808 ♫ 04:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just merged some cites to the instruction manual, but then I noticed an inconsistency. Compared cite No. 4 to the group of Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11. Are those to the same booklet? If so, they should be merged. If you can get the page numbers for No. 4, that would be helpful too. —Torchiest talkedits 22:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should be the same booklet. That particular one (No. 4) was added by an editor before I became a major contributor to the article. I'm assuming that they did this to make it easier than having the same source with just the difference of the page number. --JDC808 ♫ 04:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That style is used on other articles, yogo sapphire is an example. See Help:References and page numbers for more information. • Jesse V.(talk) 05:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't respond sooner. I've been out pretty much all day. I'll merge those sources. --JDC808 ♫ 02:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merged. I just got rid of No. 4 as what it was citing was citable in the others. --JDC808 ♫ 03:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excelent work. An excelent videogame article. Comprehensive enough, detailed enough, well sourced and catching. As the GA reviewer i give my two thumbs to JDC and his amazing work here. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Appreciate it. --JDC808 ♫ 04:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I opposed in the earlier review due to the inadequate prose quality. Doing the same again. Take a look at the entire release section. How is that engaging? Are readers really interested in every date and every release? Is that stuff encyclopedic? I'd also move the last development paragraph into the release section. - hahnchen 15:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the Release section was supposed to tell of the game's release(es) and if there were re-releases and other editions. --JDC808 ♫ 23:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I figured the same thing, but I also agree it's pretty dry reading with just a list of release dates. Can you add any sales figures, or maybe find commentary from developers, publishers, or critics about its release? Another option would be to combine the release and reception sections and mix things up. —Torchiest talkedits 00:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I removed the Sales sub-section from "Reception" and incorporated its info into Release. --JDC808 ♫ 01:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've strucken the oppose, because what I wanted it to do was to strike up conversation over whether all the release minutiae was encyclopedic. No one else seems to have voiced an opinion though, so I guess others don't find it an issue. Striking as I've not properly reviewed the rest of the article. - hahnchen 20:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Impressive article, thoroughly well-researched and written. Your overall work on the God of War series is indeed impressive.--Tærkast (Discuss) 20:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --JDC808 ♫ 06:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I think this is very close, but I'm going to try to go over it one more time looking for any last nitpicks things I can find. I've done some copy editing, but there are a few points that you'll need to resolve as the expert.
    • The second paragraph of the lead is a little confusing. In particular, these two sentences:
      "Kratos is guided by the goddess Athena, who instructs him to find the Sun God Helios, because in his absence, the Dream God Morpheus has caused the remaining gods to slumber. The Queen of the Underworld, Persephone, allies with Morpheus and enlists the aid of the Titan Atlas to use Helios' power to destroy the Pillar of the World, and in turn Olympus."
      The first sentence is a little confusing as to whose absence it is. The second sentence is just a bit unwieldy. Can you rewrite both for clarity, maybe break it into three sentences?
How is it now? I've clarified the first sentence and rewrote the second.
    • Part of the gameplay is still a little confusing:
      "Gorgon Eyes and Phoenix Feathers, which increase the maximum amount of Health and Magic respectively, return and are found in plain, neutrally-colored chests."
      I don't understand what "return" means in this sentence.
Clarified.
    • Explain what the Challenge mode is.
Explained. Does it need more explanation?
    • This is a dangling modifier: "Eventually locating Eos (sister of Helios), the goddess tells Kratos that the Titan Atlas has abducted her brother." Makes it sound like the goddess finds Eos (i.e. finds herself).
Rewrote some. How is it now?
    • This sentence in the audio section is missing at least one word: "Marino composed roughly thirteen minutes of music for and re-worked other music from the previous titles."
Fixed.
    • What do you think about moving the demo portion to the top of the release section, to put things in chronological order?
Okay, if so, Should the section be renamed and have two subsections for demo and release? Or have no subsections and the first paragraph be about the demo, then continue with the other two paragraphs? --JDC808 ♫ 06:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I already checked images and spotchecked sources in the last FAC, so I'd be willing to support if all this is taken care of. —Torchiest talkedits 00:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rewrote the second lead paragraph again, now that I understand what it's saying. As for the challenge mode, maybe change the word "challenges" to "specific tasks" and give an example. For the demo, I'd say pull the sub header and just have all three paragraphs in one section. Other than that, I'd say we're good.
Done. --JDC808 ♫ 17:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - I would like to see a few spotchecks for verification and close-paraphrasing. Graham Colm (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing Sasata (talk) 05:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Done Sasata (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's 10 picked at random:

  • article: "A grab maneuver is also available for use on minor foes that yields a higher proportion of red orbs.[2]"
  • Source: I couldn't clearly find this. I suppose it's because the game terminology is unfamiliar to me. From what I understand, one get acquire many red orbs by completing the minigame (you know, the one with the two naked women on the pallet), but I can't tell if this is the "grab maneuver" referred to.
Though the scenario you described is true, that is not the "grab maneuver" that is being referred. What it's talking about is that in the game, weaker enemies without armor can be grabbed and ripped apart or beaten. I removed since it's not covered in that source. It may mention it in the instruction manual, but I'll have to check later as it's not with me at the moment.
  • article: "Game developer Ready at Dawn pitched the idea of a God of War game for the PlayStation Portable to SCEA's Santa Monica Studios.[10]"
  • source: 500-Internal Service Error
Hm, there weren't any errors when I open it. How would I fix that for you to not receive the error?
  • article: "In February 2007, Ready at Dawn posted a teaser featuring "PSP" in the Omega symbol with the words "Coming Soon" in the God of War font.[11]"
  • source: I can't see where it mentions the Omega symbol, the rest is confirmed.
Corrected.
  • article: "The trailer depicts Kratos in the city of Attica, with a narrative provided by voice actress Linda Hunt."
  • source: cannot find the word "Attica", the other parts are confirmed.
Removed Attica.
  • article: "God of War: Chains of Olympus uses a proprietary, in-house engine referred to as the Ready at Dawn engine, which expanded on the engine created for Daxter and including a fluid and cloth simulator."
  • source: verified & well-paraphrased, but the grammar is poor (which expanded ... and including)
The copy-editor must have missed that. I tried to fix.
  • article: "As of June 2012, it has sold more than 3.2 million copies worldwide, in addition to 711,737 copies as part of the God of War: Origins Collection.[31]"
  • source: verified
  • article: "Matt Leone of 1UP similarly praised developers solution for the control scheme as well as the game's "fantastic" pacing.[38]
  • source: Status 404 - not available
This one also doesn't have errors for me.
  • article: "GameTrailers went on to praise the replay value for being able to "bring your powered-up methods of destruction with you."[43]"
  • source: not verified–clicking on source link brings me to here, which seems to be different than what the citation claims
Fixed.
  • article: "In IGN's Best of 2008 Awards, the game received the awards for Best PSP Action Game,[47]"
  • source: verified
  • article: "with one Ready at Dawn developer stating that preparation of the special demo disc took up to 40% of the team's production time.[17]"
  • source: verified

General comments:

  • Checklinks reveals four deadlinks, replacements should be found if possible or text modified if not; consider web-archiving the current good links to avoid future problems.
When I get some more time, I'm going to be web-archiving the sources.
  • the word "also" is overused; if your browser can do find/highlight all, I think you'll see what I mean.
Removed or changed some. --JDC808 ♫ 16:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you! --JDC808 ♫ 18:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 23:48, 20 October 2012 [28].

Stan Coveleski[edit]

Nominator(s): Wizardman 16:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a break from writing on the great Cleveland Indians of 1948 to bring up an FAC on, well, the great Cleveland Indians of 1920, back when home runs were almost unheard of and pitchers always finished the games they started. Stan Coveleski was one of those pitchers. He won 215 games, was a Hall of Famer, and was Cleveland's second great pitcher, the first being Cy Young.

I believe this meets all FA criteria, and is a solid bio despite sources being tough to come by considering when he played; his major league debut was 100 years ago to the day! Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - File:Coveleskie.jpg should include date of original work rather than upload date. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Washington Senators and New York Yankees: "The Senators lost the series in seven games, and he finished the series...". Redundant use of "series" here. I don't think "the series" needs to be there at all.
  • "pitching his last game of August 3". "of" → "on". Giants2008 (Talk) 00:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – Now that Sarastro has made a run through the article and assisted in cleaning it up further, I'm happy to support another nice baseball article for FA. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A really good piece of work. I have copy-edited this slightly (please revert if I've messed anything up), but not much. Seems comprehensive, and easy to understand for the non-specialist. The only problems are with the lead, which is quite a bit weaker than the rest of the article, and a few jargon things. Also, the linking is a slightly inconsistent. But happy to support once these issues are cleared up. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "before staying in the majors for good after signing with the Indians in 1916": A little informal. Maybe "before remaining in the majors with the Indians from 1916". Or "but stayed in the majors after signing with the Indians in 1916".
  • "and won three games during the 1920 World Series": The team, or him personally?
  • The second paragraph of the lead is choppy (Covelski… He… He…) and needs a little work.
  • "but the e was later dropped because he never corrected anyone if his last name was incorrectly spelled.": This seems a little inconsequential for the lead.
  • I would have thought his status as a spitballer would warrant a mention in the first paragraph?
  • In the Philadelphia Athletics section, the win-loss thing is inconsistent. For some teams, it is spelt out as x games won, y games lost, etc, but for others it is given in the x-y form. Then in the rest of the article, it is in the x-y form.
  • A few things, such as spitball and ERA are linked in the lead, but not on their first mention in the main body. I assume this was accidental as other things linked in the lead are linked in the main body as well.
  • "While Connie Mack had an agreement with Spokane that Coveleski would be brought up after playing there for a time": Brought up sounds slightly jargony.
  • "Coveleski had lost 10 pounds due to illness during 1916, but recovered during the offseason, appeared in far better health and gained 20 pounds.": "appeared in far better health" does not really fit here. Maybe specify when he appeared healthier; i.e. presumably at the start of the next season?
  • "Coveleski was cemented as the ace of the staff": Jargon?
  • "Coveleski was grandfathered in…": A bit jargony, but probably OK it if it was linked.
  • "but on May 28, his wife died suddenly, and he was given some time off to mourn.[2] Nearly three months later, he was the starting pitcher against the New York Yankees": This suggests he had those three months off. Maybe clarify this.
  • "Coveleski's efforts led to the Indians winning the AL pennant…": maybe helped rather than led to. I imagine others contributed!
  • "While he did knock the Yankees from first place…": More jargon.
  • "he slowed down later on in the season": Ambiguous. This could refer to the pace of his pitching.
  • "he was considered the biggest surprise in baseball": A surprise in what sense? It can't really be his pitching, and if his presence made his team favourites, why would it be a surprise that he was successful?
  • "providing free pitching lessons to local youth": Youth singular (should be "a youth") or plural ("youths")?
  • "he dropped the e at the end of his name, as he never corrected anyone if his last name was incorrectly spelled.": Hmmm. I'm not sure of the best way to show a single letter, but does it perhaps need quotation marks? And this is telling two different stories; "he dropped" implies a deliberate choice, but the rest of the sentence suggests he simply accepted mis-spellings and the correct spelling just fell out of use.
  • "Coveleski was 216–142": A bit abrupt!
  • It is a little odd to read of some things that happened during his life after being told that he had died.
  • If possible, it would be good to have a little more on his technique. From what little I know of this, the spitball sounds fascinating and I was expecting to read more about how he used it. How difficult was he to face? Presumably he would be harder to face than other pitchers. Also, for non-baseballers, maybe a sentence or two which explained what a spitball was and why it was banned would be helpful.
  • There is a problem with the ISBN for the Sowell book. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixes in progress, should be done tonight (I'll be rewriting the lead hence the slight delay). To answer comment two, yes he won three games himself, Indians won five in all (for a couple years the World Series was best-of-nine). Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Now done. On anything I didn't fix, for the biggest surprise, i perhaps overly simplified the situation with Stan and Washington. Washington won the title in 1924, and brought in a few veteran pitchers who were off of other teams in hopes that one or two could be a quality pitcher. Coveleski happened to be that guy. They probably would have been favorites without Stan joining so I could reword. On the e, if my readings sounds right he did eventually just change his name to drop the e, but it was way after his career ended and long after he was regularly in the papers anyway. I'd have to re-research that for certainty though. I'll expand the spitball in the legacy a bit, but i added a bit more to the lead as well, which should help. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support: Changes look good, and I think it's just about there. I made a few more tweaks. I've left a few things unstruck which you indicate you are looking into. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • One minor issue in the revised lead: "Major League Baseball spitball pitcher" gives us three consecutive linked items which may be mistaken for one link. I would suggest separating out the links a little.
  • "Coveleski spent nine seasons with them, and won three games during the 1920 World Series.": As written, it sounds like this was his only achievement in those nine seasons.
  • "A starting pitcher, Coveleski specialized in throwing the spitball, a pitch where the ball is altered, generally with saliva.": I think if this is to be included, we should say why the ball was altered.
  • "Coveleski was considered the ace of the staff by being named the starter for Opening Day to begin the 1917 season": Not quite sure this works now. Maybe "Coveleski's status as the ace of the staff was demonstrated when he was named the starter for Opening Day of the 1917 season" .
  • "Coveleski's helped lead the Indians to win": I think either "helped the Indians to win" or "led the Indians to a win".
  • If the spitball stuff is in the lead, it does need to be in the main body; I assume from the above comment that this is in the pipeline.
  • "Biggest surprise" thing looks fine now. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. The spitball stuff is in the main body, in two different spots (the introduction and banning), though I could also add it to the last section if needed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: (Copyediting disclaimer). Everything looks goods now. I think I personally would like a touch more on the spitball, perhaps more background and legacy, but this is not a huge issue and does not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Muboshgu (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not clear on what a "breaker boy" is. What did he "break"?
  • The first usage of ERA in the body is abbreviated without the full name given. It is given in the lead, though. My understanding is that the first usage in the body needs to be spelled out as well, no? Same issue with win-loss record, being it's linked in the lead but then referred to as "record" in its first usage in the body.
  • Same thing with American League in the Indians section. Actually it's spelled out and abbreviated at different times.
  • The A's didn't merely promote Coveleski from the minors, that implies they had a working agreement with Atlantic City. Per the SABR bio, Mack noticed Coveleski and signed him.
  • "the Athletics fell under new ownership in 1913 and lost control of him" the SABR bio has a little more on this.
  • Per MOS:IMAGELOCATION: "Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph."
  • Would help to link to seasons where it says things like "1918 season"
    • That one is now linked, but there's a whole bunch of other "19XX season" phrases that could be linked
  • "He pitched the first game against Hall of Famer Rube Marquard"... well he wasn't a Hall of Famer at the time. Meanwhile, later you say "against fellow spitballer Burleigh Grimes"... well Grimes is a HoFer too, so for consistency they should both be mentioned as "future HoFers" (or something similar) or not have it mentioned at all. I would've commented that you should mention Grimes was a spitballer if you hadn't.
  • At the start of the Senators section, it calls them the "Nationals". While I know that the team was sometimes referred to that way, it could confuse people with the current Washington Nationals, especially as they're called the Senators in the lead, infobox, and section header. You could explain that, or change it to "Senators".
  • His name by birth was "Coveleskie", and he didn't drop the "e" until after his retirement. However, this isn't mentioned anywhere until the retirement section, making it a bit confusing. It should be mentioned earlier that he was born "Coveleskie", I looked at that baseball card and wondered if they had misspelled his name by adding that last "e".
  • In the "Later life and legacy" section, I'd swap the first and second paragraph. It seems to come out of nowhere that he was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame, not to mention it's linked in the second paragraph and not the first.
  • I see some things in the SABR bio that aren't in the wiki article that I think should be included. For one, he was born "Stanislaus Anthony Kowalewski", that fits in with my earlier point. He hauled lumber for the miners, perhaps that's what a "breaker boy" is? Regarding his pitching style, he was a noted control artist who did not look to strike out a ton of batters. He threw overhand, but occasionally went into a sidearm delivery. Also, "Though he could be taciturn and ornery on days when he pitched, off the field Coveleski was generally considered friendly, though not particularly talkative."
    In progress; I'll find some time in the next day to re-read the sabr bio and try to add some things in. I tried not to overuse it but by doing so I underused it. Also on the second note, it only needs to be linked on first mention regardless of where it is. Wizardman 15:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything now done sans the last point, will do a bit more ce and expanding today. Wizardman 16:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Now done. Added a bit extra about his name change earlier on so everything should finally tie together there, and added some SABR stuff. Wizardman 18:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Think I'm almost ready to support. I'll re-read it tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think everything's finally fixed now; added some more season links and took out the Hall of Famer notes for the two pitchers. Wizardman 15:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I added a minor qualification to the comment on the list from Bill James to reflect that it was a list of the all time greatest major league pitchers rather than the all time greatest pitchers as there were 2 or 3 Negro League pitchers that would likely rate above Coveleski in a comprehensive list. However, this is a truly wonderful article and I am happy to support it. --Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 13:44, 18 October 2012 [29].


Peter Warlock[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Warlock, real name Philip Arthur Heseltine, was an oddball English composer and music critic. Entirely self-taught, but influenced mainly by Delius and Van Dieren, he composed highly individual music, and also wrote analysis and criticism with insight and authority, especially on the subject of 16th century music. He enjoyed a hedonistic lifestyle with generous helpings of booze, girls and nude motorcycling, before dying at 36 "of drink and copulation/A sad discredit to the nation" according to his own predictive epitaph. I hope the article provides some insight into what made him tick. It has been fully peer-reviewed, but further suggestions are always welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComment. Fabulous writing, as usual, and an entrancing subject.

  • In the summer of 1915, Channing is an artist's model; by winter she is an "ex-model". Really?
  • There's no indication hat she carried on modelling after she met Heseltine, but I've removed the wording. Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I right to take it that Channing is referred to by the sources as "Puma"? The use of the nickname throughout the entry, without quote marks, otherwise seems inappropriate.
  • Yes, I have followed the sources in introducing the name with quote marks and then referring to her as Puma without quotes. It seems that the nickname was in general use as her name, like, say, Tiger Woods. Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Bartók's music"? Only Bela has been referred to, so not sure why "the"; and the possessive is singular. What gives??
  • "a flexible population of artists, musicians and womenfolk". "Womenfolk" here strikes an off note. It does not quite sound contemporary, and presumes that they were neither artists nor musicians (which may be correct, but would need to be known to be so). In fact, later in the para we are told of the presence of, eg, Nina Hamnett, and then "sundry friends of both sexes" (this seems the better description and perhaps should be the only reference made?).
  • Yes, you'e right; "womenfolk" sounds impersonal and rather dismissive. I have altered the text. Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "beginnings of a new will was found" - it may be one will, but the beginnings of it (if beginnings there were) are plural.
  • the quote "Warlock's rattling good tunes and appropriately full-blooded accompanimant" - is that spelling of accompaniment in the original?

Thank you for this well-crafted bio. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for your comments, all now addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've indicated my support. Lovely work. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your kind comments and the support. Brianboulton (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments from Jim A great article, just a few nitpicks before I support. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fennimore and Gerda, Cecil Gray, Queen's Hall — have multiple links in main text
  • depressed, coal-gas, libretto, Elizabethan, Utopian — links?
  • I'm not sure that "depressed" and "coal gas" require links. The others do, and I have added them. Brianboulton (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • to a remote island — too remote to have a name?
  • Heseltine doesn't name it. Gray thinks it might have been Achill Island (hardly remote; even then it was connected to the mainland by a bridge) or the Aran Isles. It could have been the Blasket Islands, where only Gaelic was spoken. It's all guesswork, and best left as it is. Brianboulton (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Celtic folk-tale Liadain and Curithir — add ninth-century?
  • the Bartók's — ??
  • I had several problems with the following source "Fenby, Eric (ed.) (Autumn 1987). "The Published Writings of Philip Heseltine on Delius" . The Delius Society Journal (94)." I appreciate that I'm coming from a different direction, but just checking that you are following a standard practice for music articles.
  • All the other non-book publications are in "Citations"
  • If this were a scientific journal, I wouldn't expect a season, just year, and I'd expect 94(3) — if it's the third issue of the year.
  • I'd also expect a page range for the article within the journal, with all the citations pointing to that range
  • The Delius Society Journal publishes twice a year, in April and October. I think it used to be quarterly, though I'm not sure. The issue that I have used indicates "Autumn 1987", not a date, and is specified as No. 94. This issue was entirely devoted to Fenby's presentation of Heseltine's writings on Delius; it is not one article among several in a learned journal. For this reason, it seems appropriate to list the source with the books and to cite to page numbers accordingly. For good measure I have now added the ISSN reference. Brianboulton (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aldershot UK, Llandysul, Dyfed, (Wales), Sutton, Surrey — three different formats for the less familiar locations. Aldershot has a county (Hampshire), Wales is in the UK (or Aldershot is in England), and I don't think Sutton is better known than Aldershot. Personally, I'd give counties for all and countries for none.

Thanks, Jim, for your review and comments. Brianboulton (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm happy with most of the responses, although that the fact that you don't think that coal gas needs a link suggests that, like me, you are an editor of a certain vintage. I'm not sure it's so obvious to the younger folk. Nevertheless, I'm not going to let that deter me from supporting an excellent article, changed above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Had my say at the peer review. Image and spot not done. Seems well worthy; I was completely unfamiliar with the subject matter before reading the article!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images:

  • File:Peter Warlock.jpg needs a US copyright tag. Indeed I don't understand how the PD-70 works on it considering it has an unknown author.
  • I must apologise. I had noticed when preparing the article that the licence tag was wrong, but then completely forgot to deal with it. As you say, one cannot claim PD-70 for a photograph as recent as this, if the photographer is unknown. Furthmore, the image has been published many times, in Gray's 1934 biography and in Smith 1994, to name but two instances. I have hunted long and hard for a pre-1923 published photograph of Heseltine, with no success. This is not surprising, since he didn't really become known until the mid- to late 1920s. Therefore I am including this image on a non-free basis, with a fair use rationale. If a free image of Heseltine should come to light, then of course this image (rescanned and retitled File:Warlock1924.jpg will be replaced. Brianboulton (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This also looks a little dubious. I am investigating further, but I will probably either dump it or replace it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Later): As Lawrence is a marginal figure in this article, it scarcely seems worth spending lots of time trying to establish whether this image or another is PD. So I have replaced it with a 1912 painting of the Cafe Royal, Hseltines stamping ground in the 19-teens. Brianboulton (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Parrot or Parrott?
  • Be consistent in whether you include dates in short cites where they aren't needed for disambiguation (Copley, Smith)
  • I have included the Smith & Copley book years to avoid any confusion with other source material from these authors. A few missing years have now been filled in. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare formatting on FNs 20 and 82, check for similar
  • FN13: formatting
  • FN34: spacing
  • FN59: pages?
  • ISBN corrected (digits in wrong order). Thanks for the review. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Hi Brian, just one thing: I'd expect to see the last bit of Cologne, Oxford and London cited. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ian! The citation was somehow lost during this edit; I have restored it. How could I miss such a thing? Definitely losing my touch (see Jim's earlier comment about my "vintage"). Brianboulton (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Come now, Brian, I know you just did to see if I was still alert after weeks away travelling... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 18:03, 16 October 2012 [30].

Hiram Wesley Evans[edit]

Nominator(s): Mark Arsten (talk) & Crisco 1492 (talk)

Hiram W. Evans rose from a small-time dentist to the best-known racist in the United States, leading the Ku Klux Klan to national prominence. His gains were short lived, and he repudiated some of his bigotry before falling back into obscurity. Crisco and I have been working on this article (and its images) off and on for some time, I think we're ready for a shot at FAC now. Thanks to Wehwalt, Midnightblueowl, MathewTownsend, Rothorpe, and Parkwells for the help getting this ready. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Admittedly this is a little out of our general area, but this is likely the most complete review of Evans' life available. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComment. Great article. Some nitpicks around the prose at a couple of points.

  • "eventually rising to the thirty-second degree within the brotherhood". Layperson (well, this layperson, anyway) will have no idea what this means. Is there a possible link or explanation of some sort regarding hierarchy in the masons?
  • It is a step below the top, at least in the Scottish Rite. Mark, does the source say which Rite his Masonic group followed? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I trimmed it a bit to avoid the question. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found some of the comma placement/choice of words a bit wierd. "Evans established a small, moderately successful dentistry practice in downtown Dallas, that provided inexpensive services.[5][6] But, rumors later arose that his dental qualifications were "a bit shady"". Should that not read "Evans established a small, moderately successful dentistry practice in downtown Dallas that provided inexpensive services.[5][6] However, rumors later arose that his dental qualifications were "a bit shady""? Or is it just me?
    • Yeah, that got mixed up in some of the editing, fixed now. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Evans joined the Ku Klux Klan in 1920, leaving his dental practice to dedicate all his time to the group". His dental practice dedicated his time for him? How about "Evans joined the Ku Klux Klan in 1920, leaving his dental practice so that he could dedicate all his time to the group"?
  • "in Atlanta five years previously.[12] The next year..." Implies the next year was 1916, but must hve been 1921. Maybe reorder para, so that it begins "Conceived by its founders as a continuation of Nathan Bedford Forrest's Klan of the late 19th century, the Ku Klux Klan was established in Atlanta in 1915. Evans joined the group in 1920,..." and going on from there.
  • Hang on. further on in same para, it says "In 1921, Evans was appointed..." but we are already in 1921 in this chronology...right?
  • Take a look at this - I tried reordering it to deal with my points. If you don't like it, revert - but the edit may help show why I was confused. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "argued that power should be given to "the common people of America",[31] whom he believed had a slight majority..." I realise this may be a source issue, and that Evans was wacky, but either "common people" is a meaningless phrase, or it implies the majority, in which case, being in the majority is axiomatic and the second phrase is, well, odd. A "slight" majority? Over whom? This sentence really threw me.
  • Maybe, but even so, there's something very odd about it being "a slight majority". It somehow implies that he cared: that if they in fact turned out to be 49% instead of 51% he would have changed his position, but I think we can safely conclude from his approach that he would have done nothing of the sort. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible, although we should remember he had sweet words for everyone. I'll double check the reference if it goes into further detail. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, how do I say this. No? "true Americans"? If that is a quote, fine, but otherwise the "whom he believed" formulation was preferable. I'm still a bit stuck on why the "slight" majority was important. If these were his own words, though, we could sidestep it somewhat by just quoting him. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't mind dropping it completely. (that whole clause) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the early years of Evans' tenure, the Klan reached record membership;[38][71] estimates of its peak membership range from 2.5 to 6 million members..." can this be reformulated to reduce repetition of "member/ship"?
    • Rephrased a bit, hopefully it works better now. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetition: under early national leadership we have "placed kleagles on salary instead of commission on membership fees" then later under growth and political activism, we have "Evans changed the way that chapter leaders were paid: he insisted that they receive a fixed salary rather than commissions based on membership fees in a move that lowered their income".

Generally a fascinating account.hamiltonstone (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments from Jim He would have loved Obama, especially as he would have swallowed the birther/Muslim nonsense hook, line and sinker. A great article, just a few nitpicks before I support. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • became a dentist. He operated a small, moderately successful dental practice in Texas — do we really need the "dental"?
  • But, they note that — This doesn't read write to me, if you are going to start with "but", I'd be inclined to lose the comma
  • sold their former headquarters in 1936 — Is this Washington or Atlanta?
  • sold the Klan's Atlanta headquarters, — does this refer to the above?
    • Yes, Evans certainly was a forerunner of some contemporary commentators! Hopefully they'll follow his lead and fade into obscurity :) I think I've taken care of your points. Removed "dental", changed "But" to "However", and switched the wording of the last two so it's more clear. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was quick! I'm no expert on the content, but everything looks good, changed to support above. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and support! Mark Arsten (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Had my say at the peer review. Worthy article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your support, and your thorough peer review! Mark Arsten (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - This is what happens when candidates are thoroughly prepared. Graham Colm (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 18:03, 16 October 2012 [31].

Percy Chapman[edit]

Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Chapman was an extremely glamorous England cricket captain in the 1920s and 1930s. He was the golden boy of cricket, who had it all from an early age and there seemed little limit on what he could do. But by the end of his career, he was an overweight alcoholic who quite possibly captained England while drunk on the field. Over the following years, he declined pretty quickly and died a lonely, alcohol-ravaged figure. I've been working at this for a while, and it is currently a GA and had a PR by Brianboulton. All comments welcome. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lemurbaby Excellent (if technical) prose, and an interesting read about someone who was once on everyone's lips, but who I'd never heard about before. Well done putting this article together. Just a few nitpicks:

  • "contemporaries rated him extremely highly" - very highly ?
  • I think extremely is better, as he really was rated among the absolute best ever. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "spent his final years, mainly alone" - comma not needed
  • I think it is, actually, as mainly alone is parenthetical phrase and so there is another comma after "alone". Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, these two pieces are one thought that doesn't need to be interrupted, because it makes no sense to make this statement by itself: "I spend my years." But let's see if others weigh in. I won't withhold support over this. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the team achieved seven consecutive team" - is this right?

- Lemurbaby (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments and kind words. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Lemurbaby (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review

  • Percy Chapman.jpg : appropriate copyright, Commons, appropriate use in article
  • APF Chapman.jpg : appropriate copyright, Commons, appropriate use in article
  • Sydney Mail, Nov 15 1922, p 6.jpg : appropriate copyright, Commons, appropriate use in article
  • StateLibQld 1 233112... : needs a US copyright tag, otherwise okay
  • Douglas_Jardine_Cigarette_Card.jpg : appropriate copyright, Commons, appropriate use in article

Support: I carried out a detailed peer review here. I hope to see comments here from other reviewers; pending that, my view is that this article continues the high standards found in recent cricket articles, which have hugely improved in the last few years. These articles are best when the subject has human dimensions beyond the field of performance, and Chapman's sad story of decline is a great example of this. Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words and the usual invaluable help and advice. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Don't think the second word in "County Cricket" needs the capitalization.
  • I think the convention is to for both words to be capitals. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • University cricket: "He took part in a variety of social engagements and also became involved in other sports." The "also" is redundant to "and", and could easily be removed.
  • "where critics considered he could have reached a high standard if motivated to do so". Is "where critics considered he could have" a standard formulation in British writing? Here we'd just use "believed" or something.
  • Changed to "thought" and reworded slightly. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • MCC tour to Australia and New Zealand: Don't need two New South Wales cricket team links here.
  • Ashes series of 1926: Is "a" missing from "but fielded as substitute"?
  • Strangely, no. The convention in cricket is to field as substitute rather than "a substitute", which would suggest a slightly different meaning. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stray quotation mark after "The correspondent also commented".
  • Aftermath and success: Space needed after ref 76 in the last paragraph of the section. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline: "to the extent of dropping down the batting in order to avoid doing so". Would this be better as "to the extent of dropping down the batting order to avoid doing so"? That avoids a possible redundancy while placing an "order" in a spot where it is useful.
  • A reference would be nice for note 7, since the others have them. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surprisingly tricky to find a reference. Added one which pretty much covers it. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; a read through reveals no obvious concerns. There are a few points at which I might have phrased things slightly differently, but nothing of any worry. As usual, a very well written article about an interesting chap in the history of English cricket, well done. Harrias talk 10:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed comments from Crisco 1492
  • Support on prose. Interesting and fairly comprehensible even to those with no background in cricket. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 18:03, 16 October 2012 [32].

Istanbul[edit]

Nominator(s): tariqabjotu 08:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third time's the charm? This was nominated in early July and late August, and did not get promoted either time. As I said previously, I believe the article is exceptional and comprehensive, especially since I feel like I've nitpicked over every aspect of it in the past two and a half years. Nevertheless, it has yet to attain featured status in part because participation in the previous FACs has not been high. Indeed, despite this being less than two weeks after the last FAC failed, the FA delegates have granted permission for this to be nominated again quickly, with consideration given toward the positive feedback the article received in that second FAC. Perhaps this will be the last time Istanbul is at FAC. -- tariqabjotu 08:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • You reverted one of my edits where I changed "forty" to "40", etc. I don't have any preference, but you have to be consistent at FAC to get supports on prose ... with all the intervening edits, I think it's too late to unrevert my edit now, so please through the article writing out numbers according to some consistent rule (such as, everything under 101, or under 11, is written out except for the various special cases mentioned at WP:NUMERAL). (Possibly, it's consistent after your edits, but I thought I remembered there was a lot more to do to make it consistent than you did.)
  • "the belief that it was the precursor to the present name ...": Whose belief? Why is it important that they believed it? Why not go with the tighter "but was not the original name"?
  • Otherwise, I copyedited this a few days ago and I believe it's good to go. - Dank (push to talk) 21:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, your suggestion (now made twice) that I "check the edit summaries" is a bit odd, considering all of your edits seemed to just have the summary "ce". So, I have no idea what is going on in each edit until I go through each one by one.
As for the issues, you've raised:
  • Please don't hold FAC supports over my head like that (i.e. "If you don't do this trivial thing, you will not get supports on an overarching criterion"). After nearly three months here, I'm not interested, and I've had it. This will likely be my last FAC for this article, regardless of what happens, and likely my last FAC for years, if not ever, due to the ridiculous nitpicking I've seen on this article, in comparison to others I've seen promoted here with similar minor issues. I've made all the percentages numerals because WP:NUMERAL requests that, but the way this article is written, numerals are the exception rather than the rule, and I'd prefer it to stay that way.
  • I actually use edit summaries, so you can just read that. Furthermore, the idea that it wasn't the original name is obvious; the first sentence of the section says "The first known name of the city is Byzantium". I know what you meant is that it wasn't the original name after the previous two names, but that's obviously not stated (nor something that should be stated). Whose belief? Those with a popular misconception? The source supports the statement and I'd rather take imprecision over a watered-down statement. Sorry.
And let me repeat, now for the third time, that I fail to understand what trips people up about this sentence. I'm not sure if there is just an unwillingness to admit that you misread a perfectly correct sentence, but unless you were to assume the sentence was written in a grammatically incorrect manner, there is no way "which has been Istanbul's major spice market since 1660" can refer to anything other than the Egyptian Bazaar. If one were to write "The school is near the hospital and the church, which is the largest building in the town", it cannot refer to the school. It refers to the thing right before it, just like most appositive phrases in the English language. Please leave it alone. -- tariqabjotu 22:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree the sentence is ambiguous (consider it a fault in English if you will), but more importantly, why is the Mahmutpasha Bazaar listed without any context? Why is it there, what does it matter that it's located between two other bazaars? Especially if you give context to both the Grand Bazaar and the Egyptian Bazaar. Perhaps in solving this issue the sentence structure would be more clear. Personally, I'd just take out the reference to the Mahmutpasha Bazaar and keep the historic context around the Grand Bazaar and the Egyptian Bazaar Mattximus (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A fault in English? Show me one sentence (from a reliable source or someone expected to write English well) in which the appositive or a nonessential clause (particularly using "which") refers to something other than the noun or phrase directly next to it, and I'll change it. But as far as I know, those don't exist. The sentence currently in the article says exactly what it's supposed to mean and means exactly what it says. The sentence I think you all are looking for is:

Mahmutpasha Bazaar is an open-air market extending between the Grand Bazaar and the Egyptian Bazaar that has been Istanbul's major spice market since 1660.

But that's not what the sentence actually says. The presence of the comma followed by "which" makes the point about the Egyptian Bazaar, the noun directly before it, and not the Mahmutpasha Bazaar. As for context... the sentence says it's an open-air market. What further context do you need? -- tariqabjotu 00:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I was not clear in my comment. As written: the Egyptian Bazaar was a major spice market since 1660, the grand bazaar one of the worlds oldest and largest... then the mahmutpasa bazaar is "an open-air market". So, why list this one out of any of the other bazaars, or shopping centres for that matter? What makes it special, worth adding into the Istanbul article? At least the first two have some context. Mattximus (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't located between the Grand Bazaar and the Egyptian Bazaar, it probably wouldn't be as important to the article. It's sort of a transition, so I'm not just talking about the Grand Bazaar in one sentence and the Egyptian Bazaar in the next. The fact that the two markets are somewhat close to each other (not next to each other, but certainly walking distance) and there's a market that essentially runs between them seems like a natural way to introduce the Egyptian Bazaar even if that other market (the Mahmutpasha Bazaar) isn't as interesting as the other two. It helps too that it's not as touristy as the others, so we're not just talking about the tourist places. It sounds to me, though, like its mention wouldn't be of concern if it weren't for the supposed ambiguity surrounding the sentence. But I'm reluctant to change a sentence if there's no valid way of reading the sentence as written and coming to the interpretation you and Dank have. -- tariqabjotu 02:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mahmutpasha Bazaar is not an historic market of Istanbul. I corrected the corresponding article last month, before my vacation (part of them in Istanbul :-)). I suspect that the article about Mahmutpasha Bazaar was conceived as a kind of commercial spam: as a matter of fact, the Bazaar is only a street with (cheap) shops attended by Anatolian immigrants, extending between the two major Bazaars. It is NOT an historic market, as the original version of the article claimed, but only one of the many streets with shops in Istanbul, and its importance, as Tariq points out, stems only from its position between the Egyptian and the Grand Bazaar. IMO, if an open street market deserves a mention for historical reasons, this is the Uzun Çarsı (the long market), which follows exactly the same path as the Byzantine Makros Embolos, an important market of Constantinople. Alex2006 (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Okay, I can support as-is, after my edits and yours. - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As last time, a cautious support on comprehensiveness and prose. I am not hugely familiar with the subject matter (though I enjoyed visiting :)) so other folks might pick up content issues that I can't see. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review - all images are of good quality, appropriately used within the article, properly captioned, and marked with the correct licensing information. - Lemurbaby (talk) 08:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

  • check p. or pp. for page numbers
    Is this a general point or do you actually see a place where one is incorrectly used in place of the other? As far as I know, this is not a problem. -- tariqabjotu 09:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • be consistent in how you indicate publishing locations - whether or not to include the country, whether to write it out completely or abbreviate, how it is abbreviated etc
    Again, is this a general point or do you have something specific? There a consistent logic to the abbreviations. Countries or U.S. states are provided, abbreviated, unless a very well-known city (like London, New York, or Berlin) is used. It's fine. -- tariqabjotu 09:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • don't include page numbers for books unless you're citing a chapter, in which case the chapter and book title need to be indicated, as well as authors for both if appropriate
    Okay. And, once again, where is the problem? -- tariqabjotu 09:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • move journals into the References section
    I've done this because you've requested it, but I'm not entirely sure why this is preferred. -- tariqabjotu 09:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • consider archiving urls for websites, online docs etc using something like this site and using the archiveurl = and archivedate = parameters in your templates
    Totally unnecessary. If a link goes dead, the archive can be searched or a new source can be found. -- tariqabjotu 09:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several sources are not the most authoritative for the type of information they cite: this, this, this, this, and maybe this. I'd suggest trying to find this information in a book rather than a website.
    Websites are not prima facie worse than books. For example, Emporis is a well-respected database on structures around the world. I'm not sure what your issue is with the last link; look at what it's citing, then look at the website, then look at what it's citing. And on what basis are you making the claim that Medyatava is unreliable? I've replaced the h2g2 source and I'll try to find an alternate for the Weatherbase information. -- tariqabjotu 20:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reorganizing the section to remove the WeatherBase source. Feel free to take a look, but I believe this is done. -- tariqabjotu 21:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All books listed in the bibliography are cited in the body of the article.

- Lemurbaby (talk) 08:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lemurbaby

- Lemurbaby (talk) 09:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MathewTownsend

  • seems to be a citation missing: Kottek et al. 2006 doesn't link to the full citation. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This came about during the move of the journals from the Bibliography. I've put it back. -- tariqabjotu 20:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I really don't get the discussion about the appositive bazaar. How can it possibly matter? This is a wonderful article about a fascinating and important city. I've read it over several times and can't see a reason why it shouldn't be a featured article. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Prose is excellent, article is interesting. I sampled a few random references (in English), which checked out. Good job. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 18:03, 16 October 2012 [33].

Betelgeuse[edit]

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) & Sadalsuud (talk · contribs) 14:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

This has been a massive project done in spurts over the past few years - several folks have buffed it at various times and Sadalsuud has done an amazing job incorporating large segments of fascinating material and new understanding of this star. It's had input from a number of observers and reviewers - and significant discussion on how much context to place in the article, particularly in the Angular size and Circumstellar dynamics sections but we feel to trim any more detracts from the understanding of the article. Also, we've preserved some narrative flow in storyline style in places which I think makes for easier reading. This is one article I feel most proud of being involved in, even though I felt more like a passenger at times next to Sadalsuud driving this, but anyway, read on and offer improvements. I hope folks find it enjoyable and fascinating..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NB - is a wikicup entry yes....Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SupportOppose for now, but hopefully issues can be addressed. Very much enjoying the article.

  • "Betelgeuse was measured in the mid-infrared using the Infrared Spatial Interferometer (ISI) producing a limb darkened estimate of 55.2 ± 0.5 milliarcseconds (mas)—a figure entirely consistent with Michelson's findings eighty years earlier". I think what is meant is an estimate of the star's diameter of...etc. Reader needs to be told what this is a measurement of. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "red giants dominate mass return to the galaxy creating opaque outer shells..." Speaking of "opaque"...I think readers are going to need a slightly less concise phrase than "mass return to the galaxy". There is a whole paradigmatic concept embedded in that phrase, about the life cycle of stars and the 'recycling' of mass within galactic-scale bodies, and while I'm pretty sure I knew what it meant, this summary of it leads to there being too much assumed knowledge. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reworded - is that ok? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's plainer English, but it still doesn't seem there to me. What about something like: "The mass that makes up galaxies is recycled as stars are formed and destroyed. For decades astronomers have understood that the outer shells of red giants are central to this process, yet the actual mechanics of stellar mass loss have remained a mystery."hamiltonstone (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'll pay that - it's often tricky in these situations to figure out just how much to spell out vs assuming how much a reader knows. I've changed it as per above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The photosphere has an extended atmosphere which displays strong lines of emission rather than absorption, a phenomenon which occurs when a star is surrounded by a thick gaseous envelope. This extended gaseous atmosphere has been observed moving both away from and towards Betelgeuse, depending on radial velocity fluctuations in the photosphere." This text is in the "visbility" section, and I wonder if it should be in a later section on atmosphere? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is tricky. I was musing on the properties section, but this seems quite far down the page. As a reader, do you have an idea on where best it might go to help a new reader understand? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Need to research Perhaps this section can be reworked so it's more "visibility specific". My understanding is that thick gaseous envelopes affect our "perception" of the star (hence its visibility) through extinction, making it redder. How much, I'm not sure. I'll have to do a little research to clarify this point. Casliber, do you know?--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I understand it - but where should it go.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? Having re-read it, I'm not convinced there's a better place for it than where it is, and I'm striking this issue.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a pulsating variable star with sub-classification "SRC", researchers have offered different hypotheses to explain Betelgeuse's volatile choreography..." Either tell the reader the significance of SRC / what that means, or omit it as irrelevant (ie. "As a pulsating variable star, researchers have offered different hypotheses to explain Betelgeuse's volatile choreography...") hamiltonstone (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The specific subclass of semiregular variable is not directly pertinent to the discussion that follows. I will rephrase shortly I've split the sentences to remove the direct sense of causation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section on Angular size, para beginning "Across the Atlantic,...", there are problems. There is a long quote reportedly from Perrin. I think it should be a blockquote, not run into the para, given how long it is. Second, there is no citation for the quote. Third, if it is a quote of the 2004 paper, it is not Perrin, it is Perrin and a bunch of other co-authors. It is unethical and inaccurate to reduce these teams to a single person. Fourth, the quote contains a sentence which does not make grammatical sense: "The upper atmosphere being almost transparent in K and L—the diameter is minimum at these wavelengths where the classical photosphere can be directly seen." Fifth, "transparent in K and L". Huh? A wiklink is not enough - can we turn this term into slightly plainer english? Sixth, I cannot reconcile the final sentence of the para with the text I read in the cited source. Seventh, that source is just a uni media release, and isn't high enough quality, in my view, to support a claim about the acceptance of a theory amongst the astronomy community, even if those words were in the release. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that, given the technical "shorthand" that is used in this quote, the best solution will be to paraphrase most of it. I'll work on that right now and report back for additional comments--Sadalsuud (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Massively improved, addresing all my points. Ta. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks for the feedback! While thinking about your comments, it occurred to me that I could bring additional clarity to the infrared distinctions occurring in the paragraph by redesigning the K and L band table to include a new column that will distinguish between 1) Near-Infrared, 2) Mid-Infrared and 3) Far-Infrared. It will only take a few minutes, I'll do that now.--Sadalsuud (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still in the Angular size section: "with minimal error factors less than 0.04 mas". There's something wrong with this phrase, and I can't work out quite what is meant. I'm not sure if the problem is the apparently redundant "minimal", the use of the plural "factors", a missing word, or all of these, but can editors have another look at this? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I avoided the term "error factor" altogether, since the concern here may be that it sounds "too technical". Now it reads "...with a comparatively insignificant margin of error (< 0.04 mas)." The subtle point here is that other measurements have an error factor of 0.3 mas, so these recent calculations are impressive! Hope this works!--Sadalsuud (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And again: "encompassed a 15-year horizon at one specific wavelength". If what is meant is that they studied the star's angular size over a 15 year period, then say so. "encompassed a 15-year horizon" is ambiguous, could it could alternatively mean that some sort of averaging of 15 years of observations was being undertaken. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! It now reads "period" instead of "horizon".--Sadalsuud (talk) 06:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same para: there's reference to "diminution in angular separation". When did we start talking about angular "separation"? Separation from what? Does this mean "diameter"? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That was actually a serious error since angular separation and angular diameter, though related, are distinct concepts astronomically. To avoid redundancy, I chose the phrase apparent size which blue links to the angular diameter article.--Sadalsuud (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The properties section makes reference to Betelgeuse being less luminous than Deneb, and refers to the recent reassessment of Deneb's luminosity. This seems to be getting too detailed (the reader doesn't really care that Deneb's luminosity was recently reassessed), but the glaring omission is that the article hasn't told us what Betelgeuse's luminosity is. It is odd to have these figures not being discussed until the next para. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the Deneb stuff as I think it interrupts the flow more than adds to understanding. I am just musing on whether we flip paras 1 and 2 in this section in their entirety.. I've rejigged the order. Take a look now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same para: "Since 1943, the spectrum of this star has served ..." Read literally, "this" here refers to Deneb I think, not Betelgeuse. Was that the intention? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, Betelgeuse. The Deneb mention derails things a bit and I think the section flows better with it removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the comparison on rotational velocity with Pleione? Just because it's fast? I don't think that is a useful contrast. Either contrast it with our own star, or with another red giant (ie. another similar star), not some random star that happens to spin really fast. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chuckle! The real reason I included it was because it was the first GA I ever worked on. The two closest stars in size are Antares and Mu Cephei, but the latter has nothing listed in SIMBAD. The rotational data for Antares is from 1970. Bright Star Catalog 1991 shows it at 20km/s. I will upgrade and change to Antares.--Sadalsuud (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now shows Antares along with the most recent ref.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but I'm not sure about "extremely" slow in comparison. The comparison with Pleione showed a truly massive difference, but Antares has 'only' four times the rotational velocity. I think if you just delete "extremely", then we're done. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"slow" looked a little funny when left by itself, so I reworded to "much slower than Antares", though tossed up whether we needed some other words such as "compared with" to clarify the two stars' similarity...or should we take that as understood by this point in the article... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bolometric" luminosity - no wikilink, no explanation? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"bolometric" is actually redundant as the luminosity of a star is measured across all electromagnetic wavelengths (this contrasts with bolometric magnitude which is measured across all wavelengths vs apparent and absolute magnitudes which are visual spectrum only - see luminosity#Astronomy and Bolometric correction. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most investigators showing a preference for a relatively large mass ranging from 10 to 20M☉. One model reports a mass at the lower end of the scale at 14M☉, although a mass ranging from 18 to 20 is more commonplace". Which is the commoner range? 10 to 20, or 18 to 20? These appear inconsistent. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Need to research This section was originally drafted in 2010. But Mohamed 2012 may have the answer. I'll research this and update accordingly--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Research done
Unfortunately, Mohamed2012 doesn't provide any additional clarity. So we are faced with a judgment call as editors. On page 2 of Mohamed 2012, the authors put forth a handy table of basic stellar parameters. The first on the list is Mass. But instead of resolving the debate, Mohamed quotes two distinct papers with vastly different parameters, one from Neilson 2011 showing a Mass = 11.6+5.0−3.9M⊙, the second from Smith 2009 showing Mass = 15—20M⊙, which if you were to combine the two would yield a range where Mass ≈ 7.7—20M⊙—clearly not a very good solution for our purposes.
When you study the two underlying papers, however, you notice something interesting. The Neilson2011 document has Haubois as a co-author. Haubois is one of the astronomers who has been working with Perrin and Kervella using the VLT in Chile and arguing that a near-infrared diameter is the more accurate photosperic measurement. So the 11.6M⊙is based on the smaller photospheric measurement of 4.3AU or 955R⊙. Similarly, the 17.5±2.5M⊙is based on the research being done by the Berkeley team and is based on a photospheric measurement of 5.6AU or 1,200R⊙.
Seeing this, I have gone ahead and edited the section on Mass, carrying forward the same theme found at the conclusion of the Angular size discussion. Since 5.5AU is still the de facto standard, I have chosen 17.5±2.5M as the standard Mass, while hinting at the Mass being considerably smaller, should consensus move in the direction of a smaller photospheric measurement. Instead of using a range as Mohamed and Smith did of 15—20M⊙, I have chosen the midpoint of 17.5M⊙, that way achieving the simplicity we're looking for.
--Sadalsuud (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My initial thinking on this is that for the lay reader, "15-20M⊙" is probably more understandable than "17.5±2.5M⊙". I need to see what we've done in other articles though...good to sort out the numbers though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read that table in Mohamed2012 too and reached a similar conclusion. I agree with Casliber that a range is probably the better way of expressing it - another option may be to directly rely on the Smith et al article, if either of you have access to it. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Smith article is online here. Interestingly, it states, "At a distance of 152–197 pc, the star’s luminosity is roughly 0.9–1.5×105 L�, implying an initial mass of 15–20 M�" - note the word, "initial". Hence this might explain the discrepancy Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the material relating to mass is in better shape. In particular, the paragraph on "properties" is now clear about there being an unresolved debate, and different methodologies. What I'm not happy with is how that is currently summarised in the star infobox at the start of the article. The infobox should signal to the reader the significant uncertainty around Betelgeuse, not hide it. I think a range should be put there. Suggest it be done as 7.7—20M⊙, with Mohamed2012 as the ref, since that source has clear links back to the two major (competing) schools of thought.hamiltonstone (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That solution makes a lot of sense to me as it is the clearest expression of NPOV. So I changed it and then made a few changes to the text. The sentence in the text that starts with "Smith and colleagues calculated it..." still needs some work though. I'm not sure what the intent was behind the edit so I'll leave it as is for now.--Sadalsuud (talk) 08:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the range? It was wierd as it calculated the upper limit as possibly 5 solar masses more but lower as only 3.9 solar masses less...this was the easiest way I thought of saying it. I'm open to suggestions though... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The assymetrical range isn't wierd if the underlying formulae involve logarithmic / power scales. An equal error range in, say, percentage terms (plus/minus 20percent for example) will produce unequal quantities of solar masses. The 7.7 to 20 solution for the infobox seems like a good one to me.hamiltonstone (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the size of an Australian mango"?? An Indian mango is a different size?? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has always been a tricky issue. In 2010, the Betelgeuse article used a beach ball as a metaphor, but did not provide any references. Nevertheless, the idea was intriguing, but needed some rigor... hence the subsequent calculations in the Notes section. But once you run the numbers and come up with solid ratios, you're stuck with what metaphors to use. Unfortunately no sports analogy works (cricket, baseball, etc)... hence mangos and pearls were chosen. Originally the mango article only had the photo of the Australian mango with its round shape, yellow color, and correct ratio - so not a bad analogy. But then other mango pictures started to appear all over the place... Yuk! Yuk! For simplicity sake, I suppose we can delete the word "Australian" and just say mango, leaving it up the imagination of the reader. Any thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just changed it to "mango". :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yet the actual mass of the star is believed to be no more than 18 to 19 Suns (M☉), with certain mass loss estimates projected at one to two Suns since birth". Two things: is the mass range really that precise according to sources? That is very narrow. Also, re "certain" - does the article mean "some" or "definite"? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once I've done the research on Mohamed 2012, I will rework this sentence as well. To a first time reader, all these Mass estimates are confusing, I'm sure. So it makes sense to clarify the issue and present an cohesive concept, even if all the refs provide different estimates. I will report back when this is done.--Sadalsuud (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it now reads <=20M⊙, which is consistent with the starbox and Smith ref that is used.--Sadalsuud (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • VLT is linked three times in the text, twice more in image captions, and twice more in the table at the bottom. Is this overdoing it? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yes. delinked some Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
water-vapor dehyphenated Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The VLA images also showed this lower-temperature gas progressively decreasing in temperature as it extends outward—the existence of which, although unexpected, turns out to be the most abundant constituent of Betelgeuse's atmosphere". This sentence, if it can be called that, doesn't make sense, and there's a tense change part way through.hamiltonstone (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
split and converted to present tense Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the heliopause estimated at about 100 AU, the size of this outer shell is almost fourteen times the size of the Solar System." Can I just check - does the term "heliopause" by definition refer only to our solar system because, if not, the construction of this para would suggest the heliopause of Betelgeuse, which of course would not make sense. Alternative: "With our sun's heliopause estimated at..." hamiltonstone (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The cometary structure is estimated to be at least 1 parsec,..." Should this say "The cometary structure is estimated to be at least 1 parsec long,..."? hamiltonstone (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
not quite sure that is the case but I think so, the source isn't entirely clear on the shape....now where is Sadalsuud.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! Given the shape of a bow shock, however, "wide" is the better adjective. It now reads "...1 parsec wide". In fact, I've noticed that other articles will often use the analogy of a boat wake to help readers visualize a bow shock. Would that be useful here? I tried finding a photo. There is a good one on Betelgeuse from ESA, but none in the public domain. The only ones in Commons are for other stars; This one might work! Thoughts?--Sadalsuud (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just generally, i sometimes get a bit lost by the science in the later subsections of "properties", but I do think they are generally well-written, and it is mostly just a matter of concentrating. Couple of things in the supernova section. "Since the oldest subgroup in the association has an approximate age of 12 million years, the more massive stars likely had sufficient time to evolve to this stage." Which stage? I didn't get this.
blowing up...rewritten to clarify. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...all originated with such an explosion in Ori OB1 2.2, 2.7 and 4.9 million years ago" Unless I misunderstood the meaning, this should read "...such explosions..." as there were at least three.hamiltonstone (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
pluralised Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The magnitude differences with respect to the primary, measured at 656.3 (Hα) and 656.8 nm (red continuum), were 3.4 and 3.0 for the close component and 4.6 and 4.3 for the distant component". This is one of those sentences where I feel like I needed about two or three other sentences beforehand to tell me first, what this sentence means and second, why I should care. Also, why are we talking about "components" rather than "companions"? hamiltonstone (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And then there is reference to something called "periastron", and really, I feel the whole "star system" section could be reworked. If I read this correctly, It can be summarised thus: "Since 1985, the existence of one or more close stellar companions to Betelgeuse has been hypothesised. Although evidence exists of periodic variation in physical attributes that might be consistent with the existence of other bodies in the Betelgeuse system, they remain unconfirmed, and astronomers continue to debate their presence". That, together with the rather elegant existing final para of the section, may be all that's needed. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You got it! Let me rethink this section and I'll get back to you. My original intent at the time of writing was to clarify what I thought was a lot of speculation/confusion on different websites as to whether Betelgeuse had companions or not. People could not understand why the finding was announced with a lot of fanfare and then nothing for years, with everyone left in the dark. In conclusion, I probably went overboard. I'll rework it.--Sadalsuud (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with Hamiltonstone, really it is one study which offered some intriguing results on the possibility of a companion but has not been duplicated, so we might be giving it prominence it doesn't deserve.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's now chopped in half, and the image deleted. To address your points above, I don't disagree with what each of you are saying. So if you'd like to make this section even more concise, that's fine with me. My only point is that this issue, like every other issue we've had to deal with regarding Betelgeuse has (at least) 2 schools of thought. So NPOV to me suggests we do our best to present both sides of the argument. As Haubois points out in 2009: We think we're seeing bright spots due to convection, but the possibility of stellar companions can't be ruled out. The way I've got it now, you can see the evolution in thought with references. So if anyone wants to research it further, they've got a starting point.--Sadalsuud (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is much clearer and more concise now. Hamiltonstone should be along soon.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And on the same subject, I have carefully re-read the section, and can see no meaningful link between the text and the image caption: "Images from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope show that asymmetrical envelopes can trigger the formation of tightly knit binary star systems". It confirmed for that the section should be radically simplified, and my feel is that that particular image and caption can go. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "spelling and pronunciation", there is a spelt-out source for the first four pronunciations for the first four options, but just a footnote for the fifth. I'm not sure why that is. I'm a bit concerned that the fifth option relies on a source for pronunciation, that is almost immediately contradicted a couple of sentences later regarding the translation (source 120: "the etymon of Betelgeuse is the Arabic phrase Ibt al Jauzah, which means "Armpit of the Central One."" WP article shortly thereafter: "Betelgeuse is often mistranslated as "armpit of the central one"". But then, the source for the latter is also a 'popular science' source, as was the source for the former... Does this need more careful work? Anyway, consider dropping the fifth pronunciation optin, unless there's a better source? hamiltonstone (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
removed fifth pronunciation, as it is only a minor variant and agree a better source would be good Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now. Those notes. They are unsourced, arcane, looooong, look to this untrained eye to be original research and my initial view is that they should not be there. I am open to arguments as to why I am wrong :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, they're a little much, I have to agree. Let me start with the short answer, then we can look at each note separately. Point #1: I don't think the notes constitute original research since they are all routine calculations–high-school math, and a few formulas from Wikipedia. Point #2: Betelgeuse, when you start to research it, is a confusing star. There is a ton of information out there, much of it does not agree, a lot of it is dated, and research is proceeding so rapidly that even the experts don't agree. So the intent from the beginning was not to give the reader a "fait-accompli" and thus add to the confusion, but rather a rich mosaic of the important points, so they could make sense of it all. In a few instances, notes were needed. Point #3: I, as a non-scientist, wanted to understand this stuff–hence the use of analogies like Wembley Stadium, the mango and noctilucent clouds. If you tell me that a star has a density of 1.576 × 10−5 kg/m3, I have no idea what that means - hence the use of analogy. Unfortunately, scientists seldom if ever use such analogies, so there are no references. The best you can do is high-school math; that way the reader can follow your logic, if they want to. Now for each note:
Note 1. Apparent Size Table. In trying to understand all the conflicting information on the star's diameter, I created a spreadsheet. Once done, I thought "Hmmm! Maybe readers will find this useful." If you think it's overkill, we can just delete it.
Note 2. Betelgeuse Radius. This is a really valuable note. Right now, there are many articles on the web saying that Betelgeuse has a radius equal to the Jovian orbit of 5.5 AU. See APOD 2010. If Perrin's hypothesis is right however, we might see 4.3 AU real soon. So at least with this note, the reader can understand why such a vast difference.
Note 3. Speed of contraction. I just used some routine math to get a sense of how fast a photosphere could contract, given what was observed. We can omit this information altogether. It's not that critical.
Note 4. Luminosity. Every article you read on Betelgeuse "out there" quotes a different luminosity figure. To me, that's confusing. So that's why I provide the standard luminosity formula so readers can make sense of the vast divergences in the articles they read.
Note 5. The mango analogy. This is my favorite one. I just love visualizing myself inside of Wembley Stadium and imagining the Earth as a one-millimeter Pearl. It's experiential, and here's the math to back it up.
Note 6. Betelgeuse Volume reduction. Once again, I just wanted to understand what it meant if Betelgeuse's radius contracted, what that would mean in terms of volume. Wow! 680 million suns in 15 years. That's mind boggling!
Note 7. Noctilucent cloud analogy. Finally, just another attempt to take something esoteric like atmospheric density and relate it to something on Earth.
--Sadalsuud (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have struck my concern on this issue. This article stretches what we might usually expect in terms of notes and calculations. Although the calculations look fairly technical, however, they are confined to multiplication and division, do not rely on models or more complex formulas, and are consistent with what is written in popular science articles about the star, as well as with the peer reviewed literature. They are needed because the peer reviewed literature does not convert angular diameter to absolute diameter, even though the popular science reporting of that literature regularly does so. The approach taken by editors here simply lays out the calculations that those popular science writers must have made, but did not explicitly state. The calculations here are superior because they make explicit the range of values involved, rather than just choosing one number arbitrarily (which is what some of the popular science pieces do (such as this).hamiltonstone (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stephen R. Wilk has proposed the constellation of Orion could have represented the Greek mythological figure Pelops..." There is no citation at all for this sentence. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There appears to be a blurring of the line between etymology and mythology section content. Also, strictly speaking, doesn't "etymology" refer to the derivation of a particular word? Accordingly, "etymology" should discuss only the origin / interpretations of "Betelgeuse" and its direct variants. However the last para of etymology, as well as some sentences under mythology, appear to be about the names given to the star in other languages and cultures. Perhaps create a new subsection titled "other names", into which you can aggragate Persian, Coptic, Hawaiian, Lacandon etc (all alt names for which there is no substantive discussion of mythology), and then the (slightly shorter) mythology section? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]
split off alternate names as sep subsection, and also fixed ref, which got seprated in para separation... Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked it further, and think it's OK now, but you might want to check my edits. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
looks fine Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpick: in the "details" section of the star infobox, the footnote tag sometimes appears after the symbol or expression for the unit of measurement, and sometimes before. Not sure if there is a good reason for that: if not, render them consistent.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it is in the formatting of the starbox template. We'll need to raise this with the wikiproject as a whole (and someone who is good at fiddling with templates!) and see how it can be tweaked Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, I remember raising that exact issue with you a few years ago at Starbox dysfunction. I remember you posting something at WikiProject Astronomy the same day, to which there was some meaningful response. It was pretty complicated, if I remember. Anyway, I tried to find the archive but could not. I guess it's a "detail" that fell through the cracks. (Sorry for the bad pun.)--Sadalsuud (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
periods from non-sentence captions removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Position_Alpha_Ori.png: what source(s) form the basis of this image?
the image was made using Skychart which is appropriately licenced freeware. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Dunhuang_Star_Atlas_-_Orion.jpg is missing a primary license. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
if it is 1300 years old isn't that just public domain due to age? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but afaik it has to be specifically tagged. Done with PD-old-100. GermanJoe (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ive been watching the work on this article over the summer, and to me the editors have done a great job in making it accessable. I've been reading it, slowly, and for the most part I dont think a thicko like me is excluded from the audience its aimed at. For that well done, this is a very good thing. Ignoring technalities being dealt with by Hamiltonstone above (because I have to, because its beyond me), the article is very clearly written. The nominators are lucky to have such a detailed and hands on review as they are gettig from Hamiltonstone, Im looking forward to supporting when they are done. Ceoil (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First look Credit for the massive amount of work, and for some genuinely good writing. Unfortunately, there are lots of MoS errors, and I think these need sorting before I go through the text again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is massive overlinking in the main text (i.e excluding the lead and captions). The duplicate link detector found so many, even ignoring piped links, that I decided life was too short to list them all. Units in particular are sometimes linked more than once in the same sentence!
I've delinked almost all (yes there were alot!), but left a couple where words are different or the links are far apart and I thought the link was a particularly pertinent or useful one Casliber (talk ·contribs) 07:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the discussion of Overlinking in Lead section and so made an effort to minimize the amount of links in the lead, leaving the more technical terms as blue links. It's a bit of a judgment call. Almost all blue links that were deleted reoccur later in the article.--Sadalsuud (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check BE/AE, I assume it's the latter, but colour/color both appear, there may be others
Yikes! forgot about that. I think we'll go with Americanizing the article - 1 x colour converted, no -ise verbs found. Not sure of any other BE words. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I wouldn't give imperial conversions, but if you feel that it's necessary, you must convert all the metric units, including long distances and temperatures.
agree - think I removed all imperial units now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Astronomy Magazine — I think you mean Astronomy magazine (with italics, magazine isn't part of the title)
done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are near-infrared and the red star italicised?
no idea - stray italics removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wembley image looks like an excuse to get a nice picture in, especially since you have another size comparison image. Of course, if you can persuade me there's a mango in the middle of the pitch...
The image actually relates to representations made in the Density section of the article, and specifically Note2, which substantiates the ratios for this comparison. In the beginning, the analogy was made to a beach ball in a stadium, not a mango. Unfortunately, there were no refs. But the idea was intriguing. So the intent here was multidimensional: 1) give readers at all levels an "experience" of the sheer size of this star, 2) make it rigorous - hence the use of simple multiplication and division in Note2, and 3) take a hotly debated issue like size and translate it into an experience people can relate to. The problem is that when you make mathematical rigor your #1 reference point, finding the right analogies becomes the challenge. No sports analogy worked (i.e. baseball, softball, soccer ball) - hence the choice of mangoes and pearls. If we compare this image to the one next to it, my sense is that it does a remarkable job of conveying to the reader the "experience" of size. Visualizing yourself sitting in that stadium with the Earth the size of a 1mm pearl really conveys that, and to me makes the article fun as well as rigorous.--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say that I'm totally convinced, but it's not a big deal, so I'll let it go unless any other reviewer picks it up. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For consistency, your non-template notes/refs (aren't notes usually separated anyway?) should end in full stops like the templated refs
I only found the two, and added a stop to the one which lacked it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "See also" should not include items wikilinked in the text
I removed some for which Betelgeuse was only included for comparison, and have reintegrated others into article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

second round I was hoping to support this time round, but I don't think we are quite there yet. Sorry to be such a pain, but here we go Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

looks fine Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • reddish-tinted — to me, the -ish and tinted serve the same purpose, I'd prefer one or the other, but not a big deal, leave as is if you want
removed tint Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10 M☉ and 10 solar (sic) — consistency please.
fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference dating is all over the place, largely because the usual practice of just giving the year has been abandoned. We have a mixture of d/m/y, m/y and just year, and different orders eg 2000, December and 18 May 2009
accessdates should all be d/m/y, others year (or d/m/y) only. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference style seems a random mixture of sentence and title cases
All title case now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 7 and ref 48 are notes, and should be with the other notes in the Notes section. they are not references
Moved 'em. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm happy that all my issues have been resolved; it's easy to miss things even in a short article, let alone one like this, so all credit for what you've done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead looks good. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "between 0.2 and 1.2, the widest range of any first-magnitude star" Two questions: first, what does "first-magnitude star" mean?
Good question! I think what we need here is a blue link to an article on magnitude. Unfortunately, none of the articles on magnitude provide a sub-heading that would address this question quickly for the reader. Give me a day or two to rework another article. Upon completion, I'll blue link "first-magnitude" and report back here.--Sadalsuud (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I upgraded the Magnitude section of the Luminosity article with a brief explanation of magnitude since the days of Hipparchus and created a table with the whole focus on simplicity. First-magnitude star is now blue linked.--Sadalsuud (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second, with the apparent magnitude varying so widely, how has it earned the title of "the eighth brightest star in the night sky"? Does this ranking system place Betelgeuse based on its brightest, dimmest, or average magnitude?
On average, this is detailed in the body of the text - do you think we should work in the word "average" somehow? Also, having some trouble figuring out what to link "first magnitude" to.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a lot of thought to this issue, tried reworking it, only to realize my rework made the lead paragraph more cumbersome. The ranking of stellar brightness is actually a complex issue, as it relates to 4 concepts: 1) the inclusion/exclusion of the Sun as a star, 2) which band is used to measure brightness, 3) whether the star is part of a star system or not and 4) brightness variations. The most elegant solution to this problem, I think, is to direct the reader to List of brightest stars, which we've done, to which I have now added the word "average" in the first sentence, so there's no confusion. Hope this works!--Sadalsuud (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The star ... is one of the largest and most luminous known stars." Does "luminous" mean the same thing as "brightest"? If not, a link, definition, or rephrasing here would be helpful. If so, why does this sentence mention something that was already covered in detail in the previous paragraph?
A star can be bright because it is close by (like Sirius) luminosity is amount of light (well, acutally all electromagnetic radiation) a star radiates) - a link to Luminosity#Astronomy is prudent...and done Casliber (talk · contribs)
  • "Its distance in 2008 was estimated at 640 light-years" Distance from where? Presumably from Earth or from the Sun, but this would benefit from clarification.
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "—which also includes the late type O and B stars in Orion's belt, Alnitak, Alnilam and Mintaka—" I don't think it is necessary to include this factoid in the lead. It doesn't really enrich the reader's overall understanding, which is the purpose of the lead. At the very least, I would trim it down to "—which also includes the stars in Orion's belt—", though I would prefer to delete it altogether.
oooh, hard choice. I do like associating the OB association with some familiar objects but can see your point. Have deleted the minimum for the moment and considering the other Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticing that this item has yet to be crossed out. Just re-read this sentence and I would tend to agree with the above. An OB association is an abstruse concept for most. I kinda like the familiarity of Orion's belt as well, as it helps the average reader get oriented quickly.--Sadalsuud (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I activated man mode and vanquished the offending detail. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the supergiant is expected to proceed through its expected life cycle" I never would have expected to see "expected" twice in this sentence; it was unexpected.
Whoops, removed (like "Paris in the the spring" really....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the star remains a perplexing mystery." Poetic, but not particularly encyclopedic. Perhaps "the star is difficult to study accurately" or "many characteristics of the star are not yet known with certainty." would be better?
rejigged Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the former - but I changed to "irregular shape" Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I had liked the slightly eccentric original text :-( hamiltonstone (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the problem here is one of ambiguity, which I can see would be problematic. The phrase "eccentric behavior" was originally chosen to summarize a number of irregularities: 1) the star's random flux 2) the irregular protrusion of gigantic convection cells, some as big as the star itself, unusual bright spots of undetermined life span, mass loss that is "episodic" and so difficult to predict or measure, as well as potential "eccentricities" in the star's shape, especially when viewed in the visible or mid-infrared. If we want to limit this sentence to one irregularity, I would propose its flux. Hence "...orbiting within this circumstellar nebula contributing to the star's overall flux."--Sadalsuud (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok sounds good, I mean "eccentric behavior" was ok, but I couldn't find anywhere to link it to..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took a little time to think about this. Two concluding thoughts: 1) the original problem was the ambiguity associated with the word "eccentric", so that's been changed to "enigmatic" and 2) "behavior" speaks to many potential consequences of stellar companions, and so I think it's the better word here. Also, the star itself has been an enigma for over a century, so it my opinion this concluding statement does a good job of wrapping up the lead. Hope that works for everyone.--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, the only major section that is not represented in the lead is Ethnological attributes. I would suggest inserting a snippet either in the first paragraph of the lead (which is the smallest of the three) or the beginning of the third paragraph (which is already focused on timeline stuff).
Added most generally accepted etymology now to para 1 Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments.
    1. The main problem of this article is its style, which is not encyclopedic. Sentences like "Across the Atlantic, another team of astronomers working in the near-infrared and led by Guy Perrin of the Observatoire de Paris" are not formal as required by MOS. This is style is more appropriate for a blog then for an encyclopedia article. In addition this sentence is inaccurate. From Perrin being the first author of the paper or the communicating author, does not follow that he led this study. And not all coauthors of this study work work in Europe, so "Across the Atlantic" is inappropriate. There are plenty of such statements in the article (see, for instance, "In 2011, Keiichi Ohnaka from the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy produced a third estimate in the near-infrared corroborating Perrin's numbers"—Ohnaka is just the first author of the paper). You should decide what style of citations you want to use. It can be either footnotes but without mentioning the authors. Or you can mention the first author like "Ohnaka et al., 2007". However, the style currently in use is both unencyclopedic and and inaccurate.
Good point now I think about it, one assumes the first author is the lead author but yes I recall publications where this is more complicated and not strictly as it seems, hence rewriting is in order. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, as far as tone goes, we might not be a blog, but neither are we a scientific journal, and much astronomical material is extremely dry and can be heavy going to read as well as difficult to understand. This is about writing in a way to make it as accessible as possible to the lay reader while not sacrificing accuracy. Writing "Ohnaka et al., 2007" is somewhat jarring to the flow of reading. I do concede about accuracy and we will double check references to ensure this is so. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I don't think the MOS requires "formal" language. It requires plain English. FAC requires prose that is engaging, even brilliant. Overly formal language doesn't necessarily achieve that goal. However, the reference to "led by Guy Perrin" (and other instances like this) are a problem, and should be fixed. I caught one, but obviously missed others. Agree with Ruslik that solution needs to be implemented throughout as required, and add that other solutions are also possible such as "Ohnaka and others [don't need to mention year]". hamiltonstone (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this press release identifies Kervella and Ohnaka as the leaders of their respective teams, and I've tried aligning the second para of Circumstellar dynamics section to reflect that. I tossed up whether to place "and colleagues" or "et al." in the "Kervella noted," segment, or whether that bit implied this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this press release confirms Lobel as the leader of a team - mentioned in para 3 of Variability section. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this press release has Townes doing just about all the theorising and discussing, doesn't describe him as the leader but pretty well implies as much. Will change one instance of "led by Townes" if need be (?). Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "Across the Atlantic..." and am looking for sources describing Perrin's role so we can accurately portray his role. I have to sleep now. More in the morning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On this and this page, Perrin and Haubois are described as the co-leaders of the Paris Observatory team in ~2009, but 2004 predates Haubois (??) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page notes Perrin was leading the team in 2004 researching Mira, but I can't find one for the 2004 Betelgeuse stuff yet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page describes Karovska as the announcer of the possible companion(s) - I think this is good to keep her name in as it shows there was a single team suggesting companions which has not had supporting findings to date elsewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think every study is written in a plain English prose which corresponds to its scientific reporting elsewhere - e.g. "X et al." is "X and colleagues" (i.e. one main author kept, or two in some cases as per original sources and mentions elsewhere), and multiauthor articles are noted at first mention accordingly Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The second problem is too much unnecessary details. Take, for instance, "Diameter" section. Now it purports to review all available original research (primary sources) in this area and makes some conclusions that, in my opinion, are unwarranted (like "In conclusion, the current debate between measurements in the mid-infrared, which suggest a possible expansion and contraction of the star, and the near-infrared, which advocates a relatively constant photospheric diameter, is yet to be resolved"). The article should be based on secondary sources (reviews), including reviews of the previous research provided in the introductory sections of original research papers. This section (Diameter) can, in fact, be considerably shortened. It only needs to report basic facts: the diameters of Betelgeuse is difficult to establish because the star does not have a sharp boundary and the measured diameter varies with wavelength and time.
Ruslik_Zero 09:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources is a guideline and I agree the article should not contain any original research. Unfortunately relying exclusively on secondary sources in more esoteric articles leads to comprehensiveness issues. For instance, I don't think "diameters of Betelgeuse is difficult to establish because the star does not have a sharp boundary and the measured diameter varies with wavelength and time." is sufficient or insightful when the topic of its diameter has been researched extensively (albeit concluding with uncertainty) so why not enlighten the reader as to some of the results people have come up with? I admit we have to take great care if we do do this to avoid synthesis and the latter needs to be removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that makes Betelgeuse so interesting, and the article quite long, is the star's complex and elusive nature, while at the same time being one of the most obvious and well-known stars in the night sky. I would be disappointed to see the article simplified in a way that reduces the sense of this star's mystery and complexity, within the confines of sticking, per Casliber, to WP:OR. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for being so late on this and thanks a lot for all the work on this article, but I oppose promotion at the moment on style grounds. I printed this out to get a sense how the article stands on its own and I will mention some of the issues (big and minor) I have come across so far going through the article (I have not checked sources in detail, the referencing looks very good):
That's fine. I was taken aback with the tag but your comments make sense so we are tackling them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • uncommon words like "vertex" and "asterism" should not be used without explanation when they are first mentioned - if this disturbs the lead one should reword and leave the explanation in the article body instead. I believe readers shouldn't have to leave the article merely to understand the lead. The same is true for "limb darkening".
substituted 'corner' for 'vertex' as for the purposes of looking in the sky, no greater distinction is needed. Will look into the other issue. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed asterism as not integral to understanding of three stars making a triangle pattern Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its distance in 2008 was estimated ..." - I'm certain this sentence doesn't want to specify the distance in this year but only give the year the measurement was made, so I think "Its distance was estimated in 2008 ..." is a better choice
done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Having been ejected from ..." - the wording of the sentence seems embellishing, saying "racing" instead of "moving" and using "supersonic", which is not that meaningful in space. Letting the facts speak for themselves is a much better style.
good point/done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reintroduced the word "supersonic" as it is used throughout the primary literature. See: Mohamed 2012, Introduction to Stellar Winds and Bow shock. I'm no astrophysicist, so I will defer to others on this issue. But it appears that this is an important distinction when describing stellar winds.--Sadalsuud (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Observational history

Nascent discoveries

  • "... based on the then-current parallax value ..." - "then-current" is bad style, like "then-President Clinton", and can be removed because there is no need to explain that people in 1920, which is mentioned, used a parallax value from that time
good point/removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "—a central theme which would be the focus of scientific inquiry for almost a century." that commentary is either original research or needs an attribution to make clear that we are not drawing conclusions on our own
I removed it as I let the facts speak for themselves. Plenty of subsequent discussion clearly shows how long and involved measurements have been. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 1950s and '60s saw important ..." - decades are not abbreviated like that in other parts of the article, so I suggest writing the full 1960s here (it's not much of an abbreviation anyway)
good point/done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the name Stratoscope I believe is so uncommon that it needs a short explanation or be described outright
Described in next sentence -is that close enough? Or shall we reorganise so both second explanations are subordinate to the first mentions of the stratoscope and the book? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would reorganise but at least an explanation exists now.
  • "This book taught a generation of astrophysicists ..." - remove as editorializing or source in whose opinion the book was that important.
The words are used in the source, but it is a but flowery so reworded. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both developments would prove to have a significant impact on our understanding ..." - says who? and "our understanding" is unobjective. unless this is sourced and stated more plainly I think this sentence adds nothing.
Given that all discoveries help our understanding of stars, the sentence pretty much states the obvious and there is nothing special about these in that respect. Hence on thinking about it I've removed the sentence Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aperture masking

  • I can't see aperture masking explained, however briefly, in this section
The whole section, I think, lacks cohesion. The theme encompasses various breakthroughs in imaging technology, with "aperture masking" being but one. I should have a rework done in the next day or two, with each of your points duly incorporated.--Sadalsuud (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Renamed section and will be including some new material. This whole section was inherited from as far back as 5 years ago. So I decided to go back and re-read the primary literature from 1970-1990, highlighting major contributions. "Imaging breakthroughs" is more effective nomenclature, allowing for a better lead sentence to describe the section. Will post here when completed.--Sadalsuud (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now complete, I think, with each issue addressed.--Sadalsuud (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • is "fringe-tracking" related to the subject of aperture masking? it's quite unclear as it is written now - that should be explained or omitted if it does not add to understanding
Omitted.--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... ultraviolet image of comparable resolution ..." - is the comparable resolution to the infrared images in the previous paragraph? is comparable the right word if the wavelength is different?
Clarified and added ref.--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The image was taken at ultraviolet wavelengths since ground-based instruments cannot produce images ..." - that Hubble has a higher resolution for UV does not explain why UV was chosen. if rewritten, the sentence could explain why Hubble was chosen over a ground-based telescope (better resolution in UV) but no explanation for using UV in of itself has been provided by the sentence as it stands now - that explanation would be in the physics of the object, not technical or in the atmosphere, no?
Rewrote sentence. Added ref. Hope this works.--Sadalsuud (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent studies

  • "... witnessed major advances on multiple fronts, ..." - too vague/general, redundant since they are listed directly thereafter anyway, should be removed
removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the dawn of the millennium ..." - why not give the date? this is flowery, unencyclopedic language
done. funny how you sometimes don't see these after reading the article 30-40 times. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nevertheless, on June 9, 2009, ..." - using "nevertheless" implies a connection to the content of the previous sentence - did Townes mention the discrepancy named there? if he merely worked on the same issue and a new fact is introduced, "nevertheless" should be removed.
'Nevertheless' removed. Although the two are discussed, the size reduction is not contrastive to the material before. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... abstruse dynamics of Betelgeuse's extended atmosphere." - is abstruse meant as complicated or "confusing"? "confusing" would have to be sourced to someone as it is an opinion. I suggest rewording for clarity.
changed to the plainer "complex" Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... outer shells of red giants are central to this process, ..." - one should mention how they are central, otherwise this imparts no real information, I think
changed to "...and red giants are major contributors." contemplating whether we need "of matter" or "of material" after "contributors" Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... showed a vast plume of gas being ejected into the surrounding atmosphere ..." - I think we should mention the plume is ejected by Betelgeuse, or maybe it's just me who paused and considered this ;) the more clarity the easier it is to follow the text
added "from the star" to clarify. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the last sentence of the paragraph is bad style, sensationalistic

Visibility

  • describing Orion's Belt as "famous" is POV unless you use attribution - the facts that follow establish the ease of spotting Betelgeuse much better
good point, 'famous' removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Once May arrives, ..." - why not "In May"? the plain language is more concise, too
trimmed Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... glimpsed but briefly ..." - again, why not "seen only briefly"? the current form is so poetic, doesn't fit with the scientific subject
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parallax

  • why is parallax sorted under visibility? they go together, but not strictly, no?
I could see swapping "parallax" and "Variability" sections - did you have a better idea for location? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. I guess it's just as well if we keep it as it is. Hekerui (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Solving this enigma holds the key to understanding other stellar parameters ..." - why not "knowing the distance helps improve the accuracy of other stellar parameters ..." - an enigma holding a key is unencyclopedic, imo
rejigged. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the treatment of parallax measurements is great, but I think the second sentence in the paragraph about Gaia has too much detail not related to Betelgeuse.
Agreed. I removed it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text implies that Gaia's ability to observe faint objects will help improve the parallax measurement for Betelgeuse, but the text already mentioned it as one of the brightest stars, so its not clear how this improvement would help with Betelgeuse
The segment of text preceding is misleading. The clear benefit is much greater precision of parallax, but I removed the after bit anyway as Betelgeuse is not specifically discussed on that page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Variability

  • why use the words "volatile choreography"? volatile does not seem the right choice when the star was just described as semiregular, and choreography is fancy way of saying pulsating? I don't mean to drain life out of the text but this seems over the top to me.
I changed it to "Betelgeuse's pulsations and their rhythm" -was tempted to use "rhythmicity" or "periodicity" in there somewhere but later settled on plainer words. Let me know if too clunky. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... which because of their number produce a relatively constant flux." - that's not obvious, how does the number influence the steadiness of the flux? also, "which because of their number" is weird prose imo
  • maybe "monster granules" should be put in quotation marks, as it was coined by Schwarzschild and is colloquial?
I changed it to the less colloquial "gigantic", I find quotation marks a tad jarring to prose and try to eliminate them if possible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "gigantic" as well, the measurements that follow immediately afterwards make the proportion clear enough.
I am ok with that as the first mention of the cells I changed "monster" to "huge", I think some emphatic adjectives are good here and there. You can see scientists write words like "tremendous" in the press releases too Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the last two sentences of the paragraph are copied almost word per word from the press release, so they are copyright infringement and need to be rewritten
Yikes! Rejigged now and distanced from source. It's such a great visual analogy that I felt it was good to keep. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diameter

  • the first sentence does not do much except reiterate that this is the third subsection of the chapter - I for one wondered for a bit what exactly was meant with challenges - I think the sentence is not useful
Good point as we've mentioned it's hard to measure a few times, hence I removed the sentence Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "each wavelength measures something different" that sounds vague without describing what they measure differently (or mentioning that this is explained in detail later)
changed to "as the star's apparent size differs depending on the wavelength used." (was wondering if I could do away with the "apparent") Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder whether the radio image would not be better positioned near text that mentions radio measurements. how is the "(pre-Harper)" qualifier relevant for the image? I don't really get what the infrared image of Betelgeuse, Meissa and Bellatrix illustrates.
  • "The current debate revolves around which wavelength—the visible, near-infrared (NIR) or mid-infrared (MIR)—..." - these are not wavelengths but ranges of wavelengths/parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, and "current" should be avoided as it becomes outdated
changed to "which part of the electromagnetic spectrum" and "current" removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... published in 2009 in Astronomy Magazine ..." - the sentence is not clear to which of the mentioned facts that refers - it's not Bester giving that estimate but the estimate itself, no? I see no evidence that the two sources used Bester, though, although it's plausible
  • "The study also put forth an explanation as to why ... produce different diameters." - the explanation follows so I suggest using a colon at the end of the sentence to make that clear in the reading flow
Interesting. I'd never thought of using a colon like this, but having just read Colon_(punctuation)#Syntactical-deductive I feel a new sense of grammatical mastery I didn't have a few minutes ago and have inserted a colon...:) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... problematic since each wavelength produces a different view of the star, ..." - "different view" is vague to me
I removed the sentence as we have already mentioned this a few paras above (about different wavelengths) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Properties

  • "last decade" is not a lasting description - I replaced one instancce but I'm not sure how best to rephrase the other
changed to "since 2001", as "recent" is no good. :Latest" would have same problems. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the photospheric temperature is somewhat uncertain." - "somewhat" is a vague word, does it mean "not very" or "quite a bit"? I think we can dispense with it
I removed vague adverb Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... extended atmosphere, a factor where even moderately strong fields ..." - I think this "a factor where" is (at least to me) opaque. maybe that could be made into two sentences?

Space Motion

  • why not call the section "Motion", because where else but space does a star move?
good point/done Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The kinematics of Betelgeuse are not easily explained." - I think this is a bad start for an explanation, especially in an encyclopedia, I would suggest "complex" or something else
good point/done Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... is roughly 10 million years". - is this projection in the next sentence that far into the past? if so, one could make that clearer
I added the word "corresponding" to the next sentence...do you think that links them ok? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.
  • the third sentence describes the projection as "an implausible hypothesis", but it's not a hypothesis, because it is a conclusion following a calculation, maybe "scenario" instead (or something else, can't think of a good word right now)?
I went concrete and just used the word "location"...that ok? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.
  • "..., but has evolved rapidly due to its unusually high mass." - I think "unusually" is not a good word to use, all the supergiants have a high mass and the source does not point out the mass as an anomaly, unless I overlooked that (it also discards a distance that would make B overluminous)
'unusually' removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "extreme luminosity" - that would apply to the supernova more than the star, it's not a good word choice imo
reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Density

  • "most ethereal" - why not "least dense" if that is meant?
Hmmm, thinking about this - I like the idea of some adjective that shows how extremely thin it is. "Vacuous" would be ok if it didn't have other connotations WRT people.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't "one of the least dense stars known" imply that sufficiently?
  • "a sphere so imposing" - this sounds more like "awe-inspiring" than a synonym for "large", I suggest removing it, the facts showing this follow right after
trimmed Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the image caption "the air in the stadium is far more dense than the star itself" seems to refer to the Sun mentioned in the previous sentence, but B is meant, no?
yup, Betelgeuse it is Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... average density of this stellar mystery ..." - "stellar mystery" is not objective
removed "of this stellar mystery" as is clear which star we're talking about. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Circumstellar dynamics

  • "... argued it was the likely cause in evolved supergiants ..." - I thought: the cause for what? perhaps reiterate "mass loss", because even though one can understand from context it seems the sentence is missing a part
I moved the "mass loss" from the preceding sentence into this one (I couldn't just add it as I couldn't face four consecutive sentences with "mass loss" in them. I figured the "however" in sentence two was enough of a link for that one Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mysteries" - that is again used, I suggests a more grounded wording because not understanding something well does not a mystery make. I suggest questions that remain to be answered or something similar; "mystery" appears again in the next paragraph
made less mysterious Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "Wolf-Rayet star" should be explained briefly, because it doesn't help the flow to bring up something new unexplained
This is tricky - I was going to add something like "extremely hot and luminous" before "Wolf-Rayet star", but realised it might be misleading as blue supergiants are hot and luminous. Similarly describing it as "blue" will sound weird and/or repetitive given I've just mentioned blue supergiants. I thought a blue-link was enough but am open to suggestions. I suppose I could put a subordinate clause in afterwards - "Wolf-Rayet star, a class of extremely hot and luminous stars"...but anything I can think of sounds unwieldy.....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asymmetric shells

  • "Recent studies suggest that ..." - one can't really tell how recent they are without a citation, perhaps that "recent" can be replaced
"Recent studies suggest that" removed - subsequent "may" allows us to ditch "suggest" Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... exists another cool region ..." - was the region with 1500 ± 500 K the first cool one? perhaps "cooler" is better, since 1500 K is not cool
Yeah I'll pay that. "cooler" more succinct than "relatively cool", which was my other thought.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... Betelgeuse has a dense highly complex atmosphere." - the article previously used the "red-hot vacuum" quotation and now the atmosphere around that is described as dense - the source doesn't qualify against what "dense" is measured (space?) but this seems like a discrepancy and may make readers wonder
From the context I'd say it was compared against the sun's atmosphere, however I agree it is hard to qualify as I suspect it is no denser than further in. I've dropped the adjective as the complexity is the key message in the source and we've spelled that out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supersonic bow shock

  • "since the beginning of the millennium" - the sources in this paragraph are from 2008 and 1997, so the wording seems off
I deleted it Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... by the star itself, but a powerful stellar wind ..." - that sentence is unclear (is it "by its stellar wind"?)
yes indeed - changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Approaching supernova

  • the word "concede" seems wrong to me (leads to the question against what opposition the number is conceded)
concede --> posit (much nicer fitting verb - I always like using it) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... relatively soon compared to its age." - I find the comparison odd, the statement "already old" has made that point in the same sentence.
I think pointing out that a supernova is due in a relatively short time in astronomical terms is a plus for the article (think lay readers), but question is how to phrase it - would either "relatively soon in astronomical terms" or "relatively soon with respect to its lifespan" be better? Any ideas? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..., because runaway stars are believed to be caused by supernovae, ..." - that is not the only cause but suggests it is believed to be
  • "..., then reach the Solar System centuries later." - the separate treatment of the travelling duration of neutrinos seems to suggest that they arrive hundreds of years later than light, but they arrive at the same time (unless the source argues they move slower - does it?)
No, the neutrinos are the first things to make it to us, beating light because they are not slowed along the way (unlike light). I have rejigged the section to make it more chronological. I hope it is clearer now (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star system

  • the Cavendish Astrophysics Group is in italics, which is not the style used in the rest of the article and does not appear to me to have a good reason
Confused for a second. Did you mean the quote from them? If so I just unitalicised it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. Thanks.
  • I strongly dislike the second to last sentence, it is crystall balling/its claims are unsourced and the description "enigmatic" for the star's past is gratuitous
I removed last two sentences as Gaia source does not mention Betelgeuse specifically and I think the section is engaging enough by leaving it with a mysterious ending.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think we can reiterate the meaning of CfA - that abbreviation was introduced long before this paragrah and not used in between - and possibly link the Gaia mission again
I unabbreviated it. Yeah, 2nd links ok as waaay up the page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnological attributes

Spelling and pronunciation

  • perhaps insert "in English" after Betelgeux, I thought for a while both names in the first sentence were German according to Bode (and that I merely didn't know the first) until I figured it out
Okay, although the -x spelling is mentioned in the OED, I can't be certain it is only English that it appears in, so have switched the "in German" bit to before the Beteigeuze, so that it unambiguously only means the second name. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

  • well written, good read

Other names

  • looks like the Japanese name referred to the Heike clan, not the war - the background is interesting but I think that needs clarification before the war story is told
rejigged it now for more logical flow + cute star detail added :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who had an artificial shoulder of ivory made for him" - in that instance I believe "himself" would be a better choice to make clear who the recipient is, no?
In the legend, Pelops was young when it his shoulder was eaten, so it was his family who ordered the shoulder made, but I kept the subordinate bit passive to keep it concise. "himself" makes it sound like he did the ordering to have it made.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read that again and I think it works.
  • "... linked via Orion's association with stormy weather ..." - I don't understand this part but the sentence from the source discussing this I find hard to understand, too, perhaps this can be made clearer?
Bleh, I realise Allen writes so obliquely I read it wrong. I have rejigged to more accurately align with book (d'oh!) and spell out that it was Allen's link (lots of Allen's stuff is suspect, but he is one of the only people who has collated material like this so is very widely quoted! Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture

  • where is the movie's connection to Carl Jung and synchronicity sourced from?
It's a great line. I didn't add that and tried to find a source for it (sadly unsuccessfully) - removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General

  • one could improve the layout by sorting successive citations by number ([74][70] to [70][74] for example)
multiple refs now in ascending numerical order. I only found one offender... Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, thought I had seen a couple...

I'm sorry for not checking out all the comments by others above first but the crossed-out text and colors are hard to read. My comments are merely suggestions, I have no problem if anyone disagrees. Hekerui (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No that makes sense. You are looking at the article how it is now, so any issues are still outstanding. If something has been discussed previously we will let you know. I generally start with the easiest fixes first while I am musing on the others... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I would weigh in on the current round of edits. A great many of them are significant improvements, and thank you to both Hekerui and Casliber, but I think some of the prose edits are making this article duller. Here are examples where I think the prose has deteriorated:
  • " this stellar giant" -> "the giant star"
This is an intriguing one - do we think there'd be lay readers who wouldn't twig that "stellar" meant star? I figure that was why this was tweaked (?) Hekerui would you be ok with "stellar giant"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.
  • deletion of "a central theme which would be the focus of scientific inquiry for almost a century" - an accurate line which built narrative interest for the reader
  • "he noticed significant changes in magnitude with Betelgeuse outshining Rigel" -> "he noticed changes in the magnitude of Betelgeuse and that it outshone Rigel" - both accurate, one is just duller prose
Agree the first sounds better and is no less wordy or grammatically ponderous Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • deletion of " Both developments would prove to have a significant impact on our understanding of the structure of red supergiants like Betelgeuse." If the sentence was inaccurate or does not accurately prefigure text that follows, then removal is warranted. However in a long text, prefiguring issues in order to spike reader interest is one of the things that makes prose "engaging, even brilliant".
I'll replay this again, but my feeling was that the statement was so general I wasn't fussed about losing it. I think there are more succinct things which are worth keeping. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For decades astronomers have understood that the outer shells of red giants are central to this process, yet the actual mechanics of stellar mass loss remain a mystery." -> "and red giants are major contributors, yet the mechanics of stellar mass loss are unclear". I don't see the problem that this edit was designed to solve. "Remain a mystery" for example is perfectly fine. Why not invoke that sense of mystery rather than use a dull word like "unclear"?
The main objection was the vague first part of the clause. Hekerui objected to "mystery" elsewhere....but I think that was probably after seeing the word several times...I will keep the exacter first bit and more interesting second and hopefully strike a balance. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there has been ongoing work to measure the actual distance of Betelgeuse, with proposed distances as high as" -> "there has been ongoing work to measure the distance of Betelgeuse and proposed distances were as high as" - in this case, I don't see why the word "were" has been inserted.
I inserted the "were" because the 2008 source mentioned this as a value used in 1985.
Ah, in that case there is a different problem. If this is an entirely historical discussion, then we need to do something about the "there has been", earlier in the sentence. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. We are a fair degree closer to a proper distance but it is not set in stone as yet, so I think "has been" is still valid, and some of the more variant claims are clearly in the past now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the grammar of the sentence doesn't work, whatever the facts are that we want to communicate. We can't have a sentence begin "There has been" and later in the same sentence refer to "distances were". The two constructions have to agree: There were / distances were, or There has been / distances are. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, in which case I have changed it back to ",with..." - as the alternative would be to have subordinate clause " proposed distances have been as high as 400 pc or about 1,300 ly." which is needlessly wordy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sentence works now.
  • "extremely low density" -> "low density". How was the density not extremely low?
I thought the word misleading, "extremely low density" suggested vacuum to me and considering how empty a vacuum in space is I thought it was a huge exaggeration and unlike "red-hot vacuum" not a good illustration. I admit I assumed the source doesn't use the wording. If it does, I have no objection to putting it back in.
The source does use "extremely" and "very", and I think "extremely" helps visualise it for the reader (i.e. engaging prose). Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Then in 2000" -> "In 2000" This reduces the signposting of chronological order for the reader, reducing readability.
I thought the years given were enough of a chronology so I felt this was a fill word.
Fair enough. I think the wiki markup was doing my eyes in. Now that I've read the 'clean' version, it looks OK without "then". hamiltonstone (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Betelgeuse is a pulsating star, meaning that the diameter is changing with time" -> "Betelgeuse is a pulsating star, its diameter changes with time", the latter text would be OK, except it is now incorrectly punctuated (the comma needs to be a colon if running with this formulation)
I slotted in a "so", yielding "Betelgeuse is a pulsating star, so its diameter changes with time". An "as" would work too, or even a "therefore" if we're trying to avoid present participles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest a slightly less 'scorched earth' approach to the tone of the article, particularly in terms of drawing the reader on through the story with "engaging, even brilliant" prose? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be right. A lot of "with" constructions in the text made it more complicated it read and it felt sensationalistic at times to me so maybe I went overboard in pointing out changes. As I stated above, these are all mere suggestions and I merely hoped to help improve this article so we can at least take that maintenance template off and consider the text going forward. Good style is not just cutting down though, that's right. Hekerui (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am very happy with about 80% of Hekerui's suggestions, though there are a few I question. I use the "with + -ing" subordinate clause alot, but I am intrigued as alot of people find it problematic. I think it works well in the Rigel comparison and have switched it back. Some other ones come to mind. Will just read a couple of sources above. It is a question of where to strike the right balance really. fascinating exercise really.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I need to sleep now. I do hope we are converging on a mutually acceptable point in prose (I do think we're getting there :)) - back in the morning. Sadalsuud should be along a little later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I lean towards supporting this nomination. An image check turned up no issues as far as I can see. I saw only one copyright problem in the text and that was dealt with, but I have only done a spotcheck. The issues that I brought up and were not addressed I hope can be dealt with one way or the other. It is not ideal for the review that I lack familiarity with the profusion of literature cited, but it appears to me that the article presents the article subject in an appropriate structure and standard of writing and sufficiently acknowledges and discusses the uncertainty of technical data. Hekerui (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am pleased (and mightily relieved) that we can find common ground and prose that both you and Hamiltonstone feel is up to scratch. Sadalsuud is still looking at the last section above and I will give the astronomy wikiproject a hoy to get some attention from someone familiar with astronomy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm late into this discussion but didn't want to see this nom die through lack of support. I do have some knowledge of the area but at this point have only done a cursory read through of the article. However, one figure that immediately caught my eye was that luminosity figure. Estimates here vary wildy, many sources quote figures as low as the 10,000-30,000 mark, and the 130,000 figure quoted here is right at the top of the range of values given. As such you have to tread very carefully preserving that figure - you need top quality sourcing for sure. Ideally you also need to show why other sources that may be given are wrong. However, the source given is not top quality, indeed it doesn't actually make the assertion given here, instead using a figure from elsewhere as a starting point.

This isn't a minor point, since this is a fairly basic parameter and a lot of the discussion that follows depends either explicitly or implicitly depends on maintaining the integrity of that figure. All that is required at the moment is someone to find a source that quotes e.g. a figure of 20,000 more forcefully and we would have to defer to that. With that change major sections of the article are invalidated. Therefore this is a kind of referencing "pinch point" that is key to the integrity of the article as a whole, and at present it is not sufficiently robust. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and the distance issues have given us decades' worth of discussion on the matter. Some webpages are updated in an odd manner, hence we have Solstation's page which has a bolded update, yet looks like the range of 40,000 to 100,000 L☉ has not been updated since the new further distance. I'll check this in web archive. The Mohamed 2012 paper uses the values from Smith 2009 - all values since 2008 incorporate new Hipparcos interpretation of B being further away than previously thought. Will just double check some others. I would have thought if there was more variance among experts currently there'd be more discussion about differing figures, which I don't recall seeing. But will check.......this also predates the update. This has 140k as a calculation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has been a difficult issue from the beginning since there is no primary research that definitively resolves the issue and the debate around 1) distance, 2) angular diameter, and 3) photospheric temperature is ongoing. The best discussion, I think, can be found in the Luminosity article under Computational challenges. These calculations were taken out of the article, but have been referenced in a few places. The discussion here is from the latest primary sources and therefore reflects the most up to date discussion on the subject, establishing a range between 84,000 L☉ and 154,000 L☉. In conclusion, I think that 120,000 L☉ as a mean figure is a fair representation of primary sources. Secondary and tertiary sources are almost always out of date, hence the confusion that's out there.--Sadalsuud (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - I have decided that this candidate is ready for promotion. Any remaining issues can be resolved post-promotion, on the article's Talk Page. I would like to thank the nominators and all the reviewers for their contributions to this intelligent and thorough discussion. Graham Colm (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 09:14, 14 October 2012 [34].

Gender Bender (The X-Files)[edit]

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 00:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm sure you're all sick of looking at The X-Files by now, this one should be relatively brief. It's leaner than my past nominations but it's as comprehensive as the sources allow and isn't short by an objective standard, I guess. The article went through a GA review over a year ago, and has since been beefed up enough to pass an A-Class review recently. As always, I'll be on hand to offer prompt responses (though I will be absent from October 14 through to October 20). And if you need any incentive to take a look, sex-changing space Amish. Come on. GRAPPLE X 00:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
Simple enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk
  • Support on prose, assuming comprehensiveness is there based on more experienced TV reviewers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I already reviewed this article for A-Class. It's a well-done article. TBrandley 02:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this could function as a proper lead image. The rationale is that it showcases the finale's twist and reveals the nature of the episode's antagonists as aliens, and also reveals a notable geographical event discussed in the article. It also visually articulates the episode's twist in a way that I don't believe prose could otherwise describe as well. That's my official suggestion unless anyone explicitly objects. Bruce Campbell (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional comment; lead doesn't mention the critical reception of the episode nor that it received analysis for its themes. That's not always required but the themes and reception sections make up a quarter of the article. Bruce Campbell (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Added some now. GRAPPLE X 17:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Otherwise, I've reviewed the article's comprehensiveness here, it's gone through a thorough semi-peer review here and underwent prose concerns previously in the FAC. Bruce Campbell (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I helped review this for A-class, and it is excellent. I'd also be willing to do spotchecks in a few days.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Grapple X. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

    • The episode was inspired by producer Glen Morgan's desire for "an episode with more of a sexy edge"; however the writers found it difficult to write a story that showed sex as scary.
    • There should be a comma after however (it's a conjunctive adverb).
    Added. GRAPPLE X 17:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This resemblance was used to include a scene showing Twa morphing into Stebbings; however Goodwin later felt that the similarity between the two actors prevented the effect from being readily apparent, "zapp[ing] the energy out of the moment".
    • Same as above.
    Added. GRAPPLE X 17:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Producer James Wong felt that the episode's ending seemed overly abrupt and unexpected, describing it as appearing "like we tried to play a trick on the audience to make them say 'Ooh, what the heck was that?'".
    • Use {{' "}} at the end of this sentence, and I don't think you need a period there.
    Added the template, but I'm not convinced about losing the full stop. The source gives a full stop after the quote, and I'm inclined the agree; the question mark is inside a quote inside the quote (if you follow me) and isn't intended to end the sentence as a question. GRAPPLE X 17:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see what you mean. Cliff Smith 21:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In his book The Nitpicker's Guide for X-Philes, author Phil Farrand has highlighted several inconsistencies in the episode; focusing on the implausible nature of the ending.
    • The semicolon should be a comma (focusing on the implausible nature of the ending is a dependent clause).
    Sure, fixed. I'm awful at these. GRAPPLE X 17:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the lone note about the different title spelling be integrated into the article somehow? Maybe like the alternate title at Pilot (House).
    This came up at the ACR too; I think it's not really worth inserting into the prose as it's essentially just a spelling variant, rather than an alternate title. The example you give is similar to how I had handled the alternate titles for Twin Peaks episodes (see "Episode 2", for example) but in each of those cases the two titles are genuinely different. If you still think it's worth a mention in the article's prose I could probably insert it under the "broadcast and reception" heading with the sources and just as a secondary title in the lead (like those in William the Conqueror I guess). GRAPPLE X 17:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a big deal. I can understand the fact it's not really an alternate title or something like that being justification for a note as opposed to a mention in the prose. Cliff Smith 21:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indopug has below suggested possibly removing it; how would you feel about that instead? GRAPPLE X 21:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll leave it up to you. Cliff Smith 17:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comments, as you can see. Cliff Smith 20:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review this one. GRAPPLE X 17:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I'm just leaving the comments up so that you can see my replies before I move all that to the talk page. Cliff Smith 21:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

One of the few times my opinion of an X-Files episode seems to match the critics. This really should've been a two-parter to bring all the threads to a close.

  • Is the "Genderbender" note necessary at all? (I see it as just a minor misspelling)
  • If yes, can it be moved to Footnotes like a regular reference so that you don't an entire section for it?
    In answer to both, I suppose I could be convinced to lose it if it's deemed too trivial, but I'd rather keep it separate from the references as I've never been keen on mixing explanatory notes with refs; as a reader, I would read any notes to an article when I scroll that far, but I'd never read the references unless I want to verify something. If anyone else wants to second removal I'll cut it, though. GRAPPLE X 21:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The date of release needs to be as close to the top as possible (people who've never heard of the show need to know that it's 1994 and not 1974 or something).
    Moved to first paragraph. GRAPPLE X 21:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "however, the writers found it difficult to write a story that showed sex as scary. The exterior shots of the village inhabited"—abrupt!
    What is it you'd like addressed—sentence length or movement from one subject to another? GRAPPLE X 21:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The latter.—indopug (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the line about filming locations. It lessens the number of subjects discussed, and doesn't make things too brief as that paragraph had grown a bit beefy anyway when I had added the thematic material. How does it look now? GRAPPLE X 02:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But Amish needs to be there. You can probably use something first para of Production. Either how they introduced them to resolve the difficulty of writing or how they contrasted the staid Kindred with the bustling nightlife.—indopug (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a little bit back in about the Amish-ish Kindred. GRAPPLE X 04:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace a few "episode"s with "Gender Bender".
    Done. GRAPPLE X 21:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "supernatural element to their touch" - any way of enforcing that you mean the literal touch? (and not like "a touch of elegance")
    Reworded to directly state physical touch. GRAPPLE X 21:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add more pics: either the Amish or a crop circle or one of the creators.
    Added a picture of some Amish people in the "Broadcast and reception" heading with a caption using Carter's "they don't watch TV quote". GRAPPLE X 21:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition, an interior set constructed . . . Duchovny over an extra day" complicated sentence. I suggest breaking down into smaller ones.
    Split. GRAPPLE X 21:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "changing gender roles of the decade" - can you elaborate on this? How did they change in the 90s?—indopug (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Source doesn't go into any detail on it, unfortunately. I assume that, given the episode's content, it's to do with the increasing normalcy of both genders as equal sexual partners and the notion that both are sexually forward and active (we open with a woman picking a man up in a bar for casual sex, something which I'm sure The Outer Limits wouldn't have touched during its time). And as for this one being a two parter, I always felt it should have just been two episodes (shape-shifting sexual predator and Amish from space just each seem like their own things. Bit like how Predator is a brilliant Commando-esque war film until that alien shows up to ruin it). Thanks for taking the time to review this one though. GRAPPLE X 21:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Congrats on another FA!—indopug (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 09:14, 14 October 2012 [35].

Franz Kafka[edit]

Nominator(s): PumpkinSky (talk · contribs) and Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is finally ready for FAC. It had a GA review by Grapple X and several people active in its PR review, especially Brian Boulton. Also active at PR and post-PR improvement were: Truthkeeper88, Sarastro1, Malleus Fatuorum, and Lou Kash (who speaks Czech). Kafka wrote in German but was from Prague, now in the Czech Republic. This round of improvement began by Gerda and I on Aug 1st as part of this year's CORE contest, in which this article took 2nd place in the CORE competition (see article talk). This is Gerda's first or second FAC nomination, depending on how you count things. We are grateful to these people and several others who helped get this article this far. PumpkinSky talk 22:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am in here late for RL reasons, like to see all the progress that happened already, and hope to move it further. - I got FA credit for Messiah (Handel) before, only because Tim riley (missed!) and Brianboulton are such gentlemen, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that we start a busy weekend in RL (on 2 continents), keep ideas coming but don't expect immediate replies, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

Addressed comments moved to talk page

Prose comments

Addressed comments moved to talk page

  • Support on prose and images. I think this article gives me a fairly good look at Kafka, although I'm dying to mention the novel that ended mid-sentence... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Arsten comments

  • Owing to page length several comments have already been moved to talk
  • Ok, finished my read through, here's the rest of my comments:
  • "The nature of Kafka's prose allows for varied interpretations and critics have placed his writing into a variety of literary schools.[93] Marxists, for example, have sharply disagreed over how to interpret Kafka's works." With whom have they disagreed?
  • Different Marxists disagreed, but I don't remember which source, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, see similar comment from Crisco.PumpkinSky talk 02:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You forgot to link Marquez and Burrows in the body.
  • "Others, such as Thomas Mann, see Kafka's work as allegorical; a quest, metaphysical in nature, for God." I think the semi could be changed to a colon here.
Done.PumpkinSky talk
  • I think you should standardize spaced endashes vs emdashes, either is ok.
Got a script for that? They look the same to me. PumpkinSky talk 23:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No script, unfortunately, compare the dashes in "They argue Kafka's work is more deliberate and subversive—and more joyful—than may first appear." and "However, James Hawes argues many of Kafka's descriptions of the legal proceedings in Der Process – metaphysical, absurd, bewildering and nightmarish as they might appear – are based on accurate and informed descriptions of German and Austrian criminal proceedings" Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Took shot at it let me know if I missed some.PumpkinSky talk 01:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is achieved due to the construction of certain sentences in German which require that the verb be positioned at the end of the sentence." Do you need the "achieved" here?
  • "The selection committee and recipients come from all over the world, but is limited to living authors who have had at least one work published in the Czech language." Should this be "but are"?
  • The bit about the asteroid doesn't seem to flow where it is, not sure if there's a better place though.
that's why it's at the endPumpkinSky talk 23:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Arsten (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a good way to avoid starting two sentences with "Kafka" like this? "Kafka dedicated the book to his father.[138] Kafka prepared a final collection of four stories for print"
  • Support pending resolution of my final nitpicks. Prose, presentation, flow, MOS issues seem to be fine to me. I can't comment on comprehensiveness, but otherwise this seems to be FA quality. Good work folks. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Initial comments

Wow, this is a really good read.

  • Add more pics?
    • Only if we find some without licensing issues, even though they are on Commons. We cut a bunch because of that. PumpkinSky talk 17:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the infobox necessary? I see a number of potential complications arising with its inclusion:
  • Was his nationality Austro-Hungary throughout his life? (all but the last few years)
  • Source for JD Salinger? (fixed, added in body, with ref)
  • Fiction, novel, short story aren't really genres, are they? Isn't this redundant to Occupation anyway? And shouldn't the latter include insurance agent? (fixed the writing stuff, he's not noted for law and insurance, I used to have that in and was told to take it out at PR)
  • The notable works don't display very neatly on my screen. (not sure about that one)
      • Yes, it's standard use and many like it. It's just a summary, for a quick overview. PumpkinSky talk 17:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done and since it's collapislbe, shouldn't be an issue, notice I said shouldn't. PumpkinSky talk 23:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not just "He also regretted having to devote so much attention to his day job"?
    • I've like to leave it as it is as that's what he and his father called it, helps set the setting of the article too.PumpkinSky talk 18:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "major impact on his writing . . . heavily influenced his writing" - repetitive?
    • one talks about his dad's influence, the other about his Jewishness influencing his writingPumpkinSky talk 18:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does the lang|de code do?
    • it's for screenreaders and accessability, which is becoming more important on wiki. PumpkinSky talk 18:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table at the end: again, those (film, music...) are "genres", are they?
    • Changed to medium, let me know if you think of a better term.PumpkinSky talk 18:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four Kafka-written books are used in the sources. Shouldn't you indicate that you're citing the introduction by an editor (and name him), not Kafka himself? Shouldn't you mention the original publication date as well in the cite?
    • As to the year, no as the notes weren't written in the original publication date. As to the editor, name isn't given that we know of and that it's in "publisher's notes" or "xii" indicates it's not in the body. That is the case with the first three. As for the 4th, currently ref 179, it's quoting what Kafka wrote, not what an editor wrote, as translated later on, so that's a valid cite.PumpkinSky talk 18:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
—indopug (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim An excellent piece of work, Although I've read his better-known works, I knew little of the man and found this very informative. Some quibbles though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find it odd that on English Wikipedia that you decided to give preference to the original German book titles linked through to the English Wikipedia article on the book, with its English title. The common name in English, for example is The Trial, not Der Process. I wouldn't expect, for example, in a article about Dostoyevsky to see Prestupleniye i nakazaniye (Crime and Punishment)
  • As said somewhere above, you can't really form a true sentence for all his life with English titles because nothing was translated during his lifetime. I was open to having the English titles in the infobox, but was told that it has to be one standard, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We had this discussion back in the beginning. I looked at other FAs that were by non English writers and there was a mix of ways this was done. We chose to go with this one. PumpkinSky talk 23:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • High German—needs link or gloss
  • tried link, although it should be clear from the context, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • only went on holidays, with his father, four times a year.—very odd construction, splitting the two temporal terms
Ce'd.PumpkinSky talk 23:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd wikilink tuberculosis and pornography
Linked porn. Turberulosis was already linked. PumpkinSky talk 23:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. PumpkinSky talk 23:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you liked it. PumpkinSky talk 23:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sort of article which is bound to have endless nitpicking, but I'm happy that there are no serious issues, and I've supported above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from MathewTownsend

  • Repetitious wording e.g. under "Family"
  • "Kafka was born into a middle-class, Ashkenazi Jewish family in Prague
  • I don't understand the problem,
  • (next paragraph) "Born in a house on the Old Town Square, Franz ..."
  • Repetitious wording e.g. under "Education"
  • "receiving good grades."
  • (next sentence) "Although receiving compliments for the quality of his Czech,"
Speaking a non-native language well does not necessarily translate to good grades. It's not repetitive.PumpkinSky talk 23:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is repeating the work "receiving" - as in "receiving" good grades; (next sentence) receiving compliments in two sentences in the row. Not engaging, even brilliant writing at a professional level. MathewTownsend (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraphs not organized e.g. under "Family"
  • "Hermann was the fourth child of Jakob Kafka"
  • (next paragraph) "... Franz was the eldest of six children"
thinking. PumpkinSky talk 23:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the problem, one is the father, the other the son, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is what is the significance of this detail about the father? Seems like an insignificant detail that has no implication -- it's irrelevant unless it's shown why it matters. Being the "fourth child" of how many children? etc. How did this impact Kafka?
  • Until we have an article about the father, we should keep some vital information about him here, because he is likely the most important figure in his son's bio. We have Ottla Kafka, Max Brod, Felice Bauer, among others, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also why not the name the mother and the father together? for the father? ... Herman was the fourth child of Jakob Kafka (fourth of Julie also? or not?)
Julie was Franz's mother, not Hermann's mother. Discussing his grandad ties in his Jewish heritage strongly as he was a ritual slaughterer. Already been through through this with another reviewer. PumpkinSky talk 23:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MathewTownsend (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Declaration - I was heavily involved at the peer review stage and had some input to the article, not enough, though, to qualify my support. This strikes me as an article that will continue to be worked on long after it is through FAC; I see no reason to delay its promotion on that score. The main editors deserve all credit for their hard work in rescuing this article from chaos, into a coherent and valuable account of an important life. Brianboulton (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 09:14, 14 October 2012 [36].

Lycoperdon perlatum[edit]

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lycoperdon perlatum is a widely distributed edible puffball mushroom. I think the article meets (or is close to meeting) the FAC requirements. Sasata (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Sasata. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images check out. I'll try to give it a proper read through soon. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim Another fine mushroom article, but you would be disappointed if there were no nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • commonly known as the common puffball, warted puffball, gem-studded puffball or devil's snuff-box, is a species of puffball mushroom in the family Agaricaceae. A common species with a cosmopolitan distribution, — too many "common"?
  • moderate-sized — I'd prefer "medium-sized" or "moderately sized", reads a little oddly
  • When mature it becomes brown and a hole in the top opens to release spores in a burst when the body is compressed by touch or falling raindrops. — can't help feeling there should be a comma somewhere
  • Christian Hendrik Persoon — the linked article gives no indication that his name can be spelt with a single "a"
  • exoperidium — exoperidium looks better
  • spore, gleba, Amanita — have multiple links in the body of the text (excluding lead)
  • Hypha — needs link
  • The fruit bodies can be eaten by slicing — "after slicing"?
  • Thank-you for the nitpicks Jim, I've fixed all of these. Sasata (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts-

  • "The gleba contains minute chambers that are lined with hymenium (the fertile, spore-bearing tissue)" - We can have "the hymenium", but can "hymenium" also be used as an uncountable noun to refer to the tissue that makes up the hymenium?
  • Yes, it can be used either way (also adjectivally, as in "hymenial tissue"). Sasata (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "high-speed Schlieren photography" Is that capital needed?
  • Nope, I was misled by the unnecessary capitalization in the source. Sasata (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For this reason puffballs collected for the table should always be sliced vertically and inspected for the internal developing structures of a mushroom." A little bit how-to. We shouldn't be advising readers, just reporting the advice experts have given.
  • Is it similar in appearance to L. marginatum? Does a note about this belong in the similar species section?
  • Missed this; now mentioned. Sasata (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Asia (China,[34] Himalayas,[35] Japan)" And southern India, according to the preceding paragraph
  • Hmmm, looks like there's been some name-changing since I took microbiology in Uni. Now updated. Sasata (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stamps of Romania and Paraguay are public domain, according to the Commons policy page, if you fancy using them. The Romanian stamp can be seen on the right here, and the template is this one. (This may be something to remember for other mushroom articles looking for interesting illustrations- see the website).
  • I've maxed out picture space for this article, but have bookmarked the site for future reference (it's sometimes difficult to find free pics of tropical gasteroid fungi). Sasata (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this is helpful. J Milburn (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally a great article.

  • Support provided a source check comes back OK. Seeems complete and well written. J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Maky:

  • In the lead, if "common puffball" is a fairly common name, I would suggest moving it to the front of the list.
  • Done. I switched "commonly known as" to "popularly known as" to avoid the word repetition. Sasata (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #4 doesn't go to page 147 from what I can tell. I also searched the source for the cited material and couldn't find any mention of L. gemmatum.
  • It refers to the original page numbering, on the upper right and left hand corners of the pages, not the new pagination resulting from PDF conversion (it's page 83 in this form). Sasata (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some authorities consider Lycoperdon gemmatum..." – This may be a case of WP:WEASEL, but since the ref is off (per the previous point), I can't verify it.
  • I reworked the synonymy section to make it less wishy washy/weaselly. The synonymy is now clearly cited to Index Fungorum and MycoBank. Sasata (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...in his 1821 A Natural Arrangement of British Plants." – Sounds awkward to me. Maybe qualify it by saying "1821 book" or "1821 publication", or slightly restructure it.
  • The nutritional value table is a little confusing with its source. It has a reference to a paper, but the table says it comes from the USDA Nutrient Database. (I just realized that it also links to an external website in the body of the article... which might be difficult to work around if this is a template.)
  • There's not much I can do about this, it's built into the template. The USDA isn't the actual source (this is given in cite #20), but the percentages given in the table are relative to USDA recommendations for daily nutrient intake. Sasata (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, a very good article as always. Beautiful captions on the images! I may have to remember to point people to this article as an example. I'm looking forward to adding my support. – Maky « talk » 23:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks kindly for taking the time to read and comment. Sasata (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 09:14, 14 October 2012 [37].

New Worlds (magazine)[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC) and Nikkimaria (talk)[reply]

New Worlds was a British science fiction magazine, most famous for its 1960s incarnation under Michael Moorcock's editorship. Moorcock made New Worlds the leader of the "New Wave", a controversial movement to expand the boundaries of the science fiction genre. The magazine has proved remarkably hard to kill, and there have been numerous reincarnations since it was first declared dead over forty years ago. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review The file File:Newworlds.jpg should detail the actual origin as well: issue number, year, and artist of the picture if known. And with so many people owning the magazine at different points, it may be advisable to point (if known) who does currently have the copyright of this particular image. Is the "price" box part of the magazine cover, or a sticker pasted over it for sale, and not removed when scanning? (because, if it's the later, it may be better to locate another copy of the file without it) Cambalachero (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC) The file seems fine now. It would have been good if we could clarify the copyright issue, but perhaps I got too detailed in there, the original printer should be enough. Cambalachero (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The actual origin is unknown (I'm not the uploader) but it is probably taken from www.philsp.com; that's mentioned in the FUR. The description in the FUR in the image file mentions this; I don't think there's more that can be added. The issue number is mentioned ("first issue"), and I've added the year and the artist. It's not known who has the copyright; or at least I haven't been able to figure it out -- Pendulum's bankruptcy was long ago, and I've no idea who their rights went to. I'm not sure about the price but it looks to me like part of the magazine cover, not a sticker, so I think there's no problem there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article review You should add the {{Infobox magazine}} to the article. "A group of science fiction fans formed a company to revive the magazine, and in the spring of 1949 Nova Publications was formed..." is a bit wordy. You should not shorten "science fiction" to "sf", use the complete words. Acronyms are only acceptable for already established ones, such as United Nations = UN. You should clarify that Amazing Stories is an American magazine; in an article about a British magazine it is tempting to assume that everybody is British unless noted otherwise. Astounding Stories and Wonder Stories should have the titles in italics as well. You say that Maurice K. Hanson founded the Novae Terrae fanzine and then moved to London; that means (if I follow correctly) that the fanzine was created somewhere else in the UK, not in London. Where? "Frances was a believer...", you should better use the verb "believe". In the first table, do we need the season columns? Everybody knows the begining and end of the seasons of the Northern Hemisphere. The word "demise" may be a bit excesive, used for magazines. Cambalachero (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've converted your points to bullets to make it easier to reply; I hope that's OK.
  • Infobox: I don't think the magazine infobox is a particularly useful one, and would prefer not to add it. Last time I looked there was no MOS requirement to do so. However, if reviewers here are in agreement that it would be better to add it, I'll do so.
  • Wordiness: agreed; fixed, I think.
  • "sf" for "science fiction" is almost universally used in the secondary sources, and I feel that it improves readability to shorten such a frequently repeated phrase. In addition, the abbreviation appears in a direct quote and in multiple titles mentioned in the article, and I think it does the reader (who may, as you say, be unfamiliar with the abbreviation) a disservice not to introduce it beforehand.
  • Amazing as a US magazine: I was hoping that "other U.S. titles" would make that point -- it is in the same sentence that Amazing is mentioned. I am having trouble reformulating this in a way that is not misleading -- for example, if I say "first U.S. sf magazine" it implies there were earlier non-U.S. sf magazines, which is not the case. I'll think some more about this one.
  • Italic titles: yes, I missed that; now fixed.
  • Hanson: Yes, in Nuneaton -- the article does say that, I think it's fairly clearly implied by saying he was a Nuneaton fan. Perhaps rephrase to "a fan in Nuneaton, Warwickshire"?
  • "Frances was a believer": agreed; done.
  • Season columns: surprisingly, it's not true that everyone agrees on the seasons. See the tables in Planet Stories for an example of a different division of the year: some magazines have the Winter issue at the start of the year, and some at the end of the year. I've even seen a magazine that does both. So I think it would be best to keep the columns.
  • "demise": well, one can only say "ended publication" in so many ways without sounding repetitive, and this isn't at all an unusual phrase (try googling it). My feeling is this is part of what it takes to make an article read more interestingly, but if others agree with you I'd be glad to change it.
Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim An impressive amount of work, and I like the summary tables. Some nitpicks though. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead is disappointing, doesn't flow well, and only two paras is insufficient for an article of this length, see WP:LEAD and the next three points.
    I have to work on something else for the rest of the evening, but will have a crack at this tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to rephrase the first para to have fewer repeats of the mag's title?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pendulum went bankrupt.— when?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • immediately settled began — ??
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • avant-garde, Nuneaton, Stoke Newington, pin-up, indicia, Burroughs, Paolozzi — need links
    Done. Two of these were a bit troublesome. Burroughs is first mentioned in a quote, and since WP:MOSLINK says that "items within quotations should not generally be linked" the following mention is linked instead. I added "[William]" in front of "Burroughs" to make it clearer who this is. The other problem is Paolozzi; he is mentioned only in this quote, but since he's less well-known he really does need to be linked. Since MOSLINK only says "generally" I went ahead and linked inside the quote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd rather assumed the link would be to Nuneaton Town F.C., I know Nuneaton, difficult to believe the town itself has fans. Can you please check? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This made me realize that the sentence was incomprehensible to someone not familiar with sf fandom. Rephrased; take a look and let me know if that makes sense. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canadian director, returned to Canada — "returned home" or similar?
    Rephrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duplicate link detector found multiple links iin the body of the text (excluding lead) for Arthur C. Clarke, John Wyndham, W.H. Smith, John Menzies, Brian Aldiss, Arthur C. Clarke, Gerard Quinn, Nebula Award, Jerry Cornelius, Berkley Books, Avon Books, Science Fiction Adventures
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [3][13][14][note 3] — I thought we discouraged long strings of refs?
    My impression is that they are a cause for suspicion but not actually forbidden. In this case the [3] is the best source for Moorcock and Warburton planning to continue the magazine together; the next two sources give the remaining details but aren't so clear on that one point. The note is just a specific piece of support for another point, and uses the same sources, so it's not really an additional source. I think this is OK as it is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that multiple refs can be nested inside a single ref, but not a big deal if you leave as is Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'd like to leave it as is -- I like the consistency of a given ref number being used every time a given ref comes up, which one loses if one combines refs. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "References", why do Oxford and Cambridge need UK, but New York doesn't need US? I would also suggest spelling out US states to help us limies
    Nikkimaria fixed some of these earlier and I've done some more; I'll add a couple more points shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer St Albans, Herfordshire and Abingdon, Oxfordshire to be linked to their counties in the same way that US towns are linked to their states rather than just USJimfbleak - talk to me? 05:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not entirely sure what you're looking for, but I added counties and links for the refs for those two -- is that closer to what you meant? I take your point about treating UK and US towns the same in the refs, but I'm not sure I've done what you intended. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with the changes so far, just the lead and three minor nitpicks left Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not bothered about the links to Abingdon etc, just that they are treated consistently with US. I've changed Oxford and Cambridge to include counties. Still not convinced that UK towns need "UK", while US towns don't need "US", but striking anyway. I think it's just the lead needs sorting now, and we should be there. Thanks for indent advice Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, now I follow you. I'll ask Nikkimaria to comment on that; she does a lot of work with references. I don't have a strong opinion either way myself. Re the lead: Malleus has agreed to take a look at it for me -- I had trouble with this lead for some reason and found it hard to write. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of country for UK and state only for US locations is actually fairly common, probably because this is what several RL style guides recommend (for example APA); we could justify either adding US or removing UK here, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, we have three paras in the lead, Malleus is happy, so I've changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Small comment

  • I can't speak to most of the article, except gosh that's comprehensive, but: no mention of the important role New Worlds played in the development of speculative poetry? SF is not just prose work. Iridia (talk) 05:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd love to add this information but have no sources that cover it. Do you know of any sources that cover this topic? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, about to travel overseas so hadn't noticed this. I had some references in the spec poetry article that mentioned it: see the History section there. As I recall I Google booked those refs, but left off the link in the citation due to the frequent to/froing on the use of such links. Iridia (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at Reid, which appears to be the relevant source, and she doesn't say much -- p. 95 says that New Worlds did run poetry, some of which ended up in the anthologies of that period, but that the association of sf poetry with the experimental New Wave didn't help the growth of sf poetry as a genre. This is a negative statement, and hard to cast as straightforward information without more context. I suspect Moorcock added poetry; that is, that there was no poetry on Carnell's watch. I don't have a source for that, though. Any thoughts on what you feel should be added to the article based on this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • The lede should be longer, but I'm not sure what should be added to extend it. My rule of thumb is one sentence in the lede for each paragraph, but I've violated it myself on any number of occasions so I'm not dogmatic about it. I do think, however, that the last sentence should have "additional" added before "22 issues". Another suggestion would be "publication" in the prior sentence, as in: "it ceased publication with issue number 200".
    Malleus has agree to take a look at the lead, so I'm going to wait for him before responding to this point -- his edits may make this comment moot. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I was a bit slow to this Mike. I've been through the lead now, and I think it's fine, although obviously I would say that, wouldn't I. Malleus Fatuorum 03:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was a little confused about the American publication; who published it in the US after Great American Publications went under? The British publisher just shipped over copies to the US for distribution with new covers?
    Yes, that's correct; the source says "the original was released in the U.S." with a later cover date. I thought this was unambiguous; is there a problem with the way it's phrased? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only in that I was thrown by the transition between them. You might clarify that they shipped issues over both before, if true, and after GAP republished the magazine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Note 9 please reverse the order of the cites so they're in numerical order. Currently cite 21 follows 63.
  • That's correct, I believe - 63 cites the first part of the note, 21 the second. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they're in that order because that's the order of the information they cite. I think it would be better to keep them that way; there's no requirements to have cites in numerical order, as far as I know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support with a few nitpicks:
  • I suppose I should read up-page, but I'm not crazy about the first sentence in the lead: "New Worlds was a British science fiction magazine, the leading such publication of its era. First published professionally in 1946, the period to 1960 has been described by historian Mike Ashley as the magazine's "Golden Age".[1]" > It feels as though the lead should begin with the paragraph after this.
    Malleus did a lot of work on the lead, so I'll ask his opinion on this. I think I see your point -- the first sentence is acting almost as a lead to the lead, summarizing again. Perhaps that second sentence could move down. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you mean TK, so I've moved a few things around. Malleus Fatuorum 15:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Frances believed in the commercial possibilities of science fiction" > should it be science fiction writing? Or is that redundant? I dunno ...
    I think it's OK as is -- what Frances believed in was the commercial viability of the genre, which I think has slightly different connotations. Just saying writing sounds a little too specific to me. For example, would you say "Frances believed in the commercial possibilities of mystery fiction", or "mystery writing"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link RAF? for those who don't know
    Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In May 1948 Carnell announced at a science fiction convention in London that plans were well underway, and that the company would be named Nova Publications Ltd > I think this can be tightened by combining the two clauses, something like this: "In May 1948 Carnell announced at a science fiction convention in London that plans were well underway to form a new company to be called Nova Publications Ltd."
    Much better; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I enjoyed reading this. Another well-researched, well-written and comprehensive piece about sf. Oh, btw made a few changes to U.S./US. Not sure if what I've done is how you want it, but it seemed to need the consistency. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review, and the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome. Sorry to see it's been languishing for so long. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't really complain -- I haven't been reviewing (I have a project going on (let me know if you want to help!)) so I can't say much when I don't get comments. I did think this was going to fail for lack of reviews, but maybe it will squeak through now. Thanks again! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. My involvement with this article has been limited to a little bit of copyediting and a bit of jiggling with the lead, at Mike's request. I think it's a very informative and nicely written account of a magazine I'd never even heard of, and meets the FA criteria, or will shortly after my nitpicks are dealt with. However (inserted for ironic effect, as you'll see shortly), I can find fault with anything, even the best:
  • "There were US reprints of the six of the New Worlds Quarterly anthology series."
    Fixed; one of those sentences which I must have read without actually reading, since I knew what I meant it to say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, starting in 1946, a group of sf fans had begun to meet regularly on Thursday nights at the White Horse pub on New Fetter Lane, near Fleet Street, and at one of these meetings it was suggested that the group form a company to revive New Worlds." That sentence, from the Early years section, is a bit more problematic though. It seems to be very common generally, and perhaps even more so here in Wikipedia, to abuse the word "however" in that way; what is it meant to be contrasting with? The previous sentence just tells us that the publisher had gone bust, and nothing in the sentence I quoted modifies the bankruptcy or its effect. I'm also bothered by the tense confusion in "starting in 1946, a group of sf fans had begun ...". Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm probably guilty of misusing "however" in other articles too -- it perks up a narrative of events a little, making it sound as though events weren't tediously linear and predictable, but were subject to surprising changes, so it's easy to be tempted to use it inaccurately. In this case, the bankruptcy implies to the reader that the magazine is doomed...but wait! It's not doomed! A group of sf fans is going to save it! Can't I use "however" for that?
    Re the tense confusion: the problem is that the source doesn't make it clear when the suggestion was made, probably because none of the primary sources remembers exactly. The source used for this sentence says "During 1946–1947, regular Thursday night meetings had been established at the White Horse Tavern in Fetter Lane...", and then goes on to say "at one meeting" someone suggested that the regulars form a company. The next date given is May 1948, when the plans for Nova were announced. Given that the third issue from Pendulum appeared in late 1947, it seems likely that the suggestion was made in late 1947 or early 1948, but there's no way to be sure. The wording as it stands is my attempt to avoid implying more than is in the source -- if you can improve on it, please do. (And thanks for the support.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I can rarely resist that kind of challenge; see what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 09:14, 14 October 2012 [38].

Cyclone Rewa[edit]

Nominator(s): Jason Rees (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... After working on it for several months now, i finally believe that it is ready to become a featured article.Jason Rees (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in when you provide publisher locations
  • Don't need retrieval dates for GBooks
  • FN12: formatting
  • FN20: verify title formatting?
    • Interestingly the title literally is "nine missing after cyclone hits png."Jason Rees (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't italicize news agencies
  • FN22: publisher?
    • Its a self publication by someone who is now one of the National Hurricane Centers Senior Hurricane Specialists and has been "Thanked for his efforts to include the ground truth in his summaries" by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center on page III/5 in its 1995 ATCR.Jason Rees (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, this is right around the time I filled-in and wrote those weekly TC summaries in 1994. I checked, and it looks like you have the right author of that particular summary. For publisher, you might need to put Florida State University, as Jack was a graduate student at that time. I'd drop the Jack in the citation...it looks clunky to include it in there. If you kept it there, do any of the other authors in the reference section have nicknames? You'd need to include those too. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you provide location and publisher for newspapers
  • FNs23-25: page(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 23 & 24 do not have pages provided by Lexis Nexis while FN 25 has one and has been added.
      • Thanks for the review - i believe all of your comments have now been sorted.Jason Rees (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments not almost ready to support yet. Support
  • "Severe Tropical Cyclone Rewa affected six countries and killed 22 people on its 28-day journey across the South Pacific Ocean during 1993–94." why is Pacific Ocean wikilined when it is a mjaor geographic place? And "1993-94" part seems a bit weird, perhpahgs re-worindg it into during December 1993 and January 1994" YE Pacific Hurricane 17:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dashes should be replaced with en dashes. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as i know all of the dashes are correct but please correct any that arent as i cant see the difference between them.Jason Rees (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Severe Tropical Cyclone Rewa affected six countries and killed 22 people on its 28-day journey across the South Pacific Ocean during December 1993 and January 1994" does not appear to have a en dash. Ill investigate it further and see if they are any others. YE Pacific Hurricane 23:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I guess it does not need one and there appears to be none missing. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early on 26 December, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) started to monitor a tropical disturbance located about 575 km (355 mi) to the south-east of Nauru.[1] Did the JTWC really monitor this or was it the NWOC?
    • It is the JTWC because NPMOC only monitored the NHEM and SHEM between 180 and the Americas.Jason Rees (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use "reported" a lot in the MH, why not switch it up to words like "estimated" "recorded" or "measured". YE Pacific Hurricane 17:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can not use recorded or measured since that implies the windspeeds were directly measured which they were not, will think about using estimated more though.Jason Rees (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During 4 January, Rewa moved back into the South Pacific basin, as a weakening category 3 severe tropical cyclone with TCWC Nadi estimating the 10-minute sustained windspeeds at 150 km/h (90 mph).[4]" Is it more or should at be changed to of? YE Pacific Hurricane 17:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later that day, Rewa moved around New Caledonia's south coast passing in between the Grand Terre island and the territory of L'Île-des-Pins, before passing over the Loyalty Islands during 6 January.[11] " on makes more sense than during here IMO. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You start four straight paragraphs in a row with "Cyclone Rewa". YE Pacific Hurricane 17:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In total over 3500 people were made homeless, while 17 deaths were recorded in Papua New Guinea when Rewa was active with eight of these deaths being caused by flooding.[21] " comma after total and 3 here AFAIK. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comma after 3500 is my choice per the MOS and if it was larger then it would be a space rather than a comma. I also dont think that the total needs a comma after it.Jason Rees (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the opening days of 1994, Rewa moved southwards parallel to the Queensland coast; however because it was located about 600 km (370 mi) to the north-west of Mackay, it was too far away from the coast for there to be any direct impact on Queensland.[4][23] " comma after "however" IMO. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The only indirect impact reported were a higher surf and long surface waves from which several people had to be rescued from before the cyclone started to move towards New Caledonia during 4 January.[16][23] " "a" seems a bit odd here too me. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 19 January Rewa started to affect Queensland with torrential rain and storm force windspeeds which caused some damage along the coast.[6] However it did not make its predicted landfall near Mackay, instead it recurved to the south-southeast and came to within 100 km (60 mi) of the coast.[6][25]" Not sure if Australian English requires this, but AFAIK, there should be a comma after January and however for starters as well as the comma before "instead" should be a semicolon AFAIK and after "instead" there should be a comma. But by all means, please correct me if I am wrong here. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Giving your reply above, just scratch this entire thing. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cyclone Katrina–Victor–Cindy 1997–98 – another erratic tropical cyclone that took a similar path

Hurricane John 1994 – the longest-tracked tropical cyclone on record" why are years mentioned here? Just wondering. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Because the name Katrina and John have been used more than once - does it really matter?.Jason Rees (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.
    • I think the numbers should all be consistent in the first sentence (ideally all in number form).
    • When you mention Category 4 in the lede, you should specify that it's on both scales.
      • I dont think this clarification is actually needed.Jason Rees (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why not? It's confusing. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • it aint that confusing IMO.Jason Rees (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Based on the link, and that there are only two scales that use C4, I guess it's fine. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link Mackay, Queensland in the lede, but get rid of the second linkage in the impact section.
    • You should clarify that the white line in the storm path is the basin divider.
    • "gradually intensified under the influence of divergent upper level easterlies" - this could probably be clearer, such as what "divergent upper level easterlies" are.
    • In the MH, you spell it "windshear", versus "wind shear" in the lede.
      • Sorted the only occurrence of windshear.Jason Rees (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "By 7 January, Rewa's circulation had become exposed under the influence of upper level north-westerlies, as a result both the JTWC and TCWC Nadi reported that Rewa had weakened into a depression.'
      • You either need a semicolon before as, or add a conjunction. Right now it's a run-on.
    • "a mid to upper level trough" - correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it should be "a mid- to upper-level trough", since mid and upper are connected to "level".
      • I dont see the need for a dash after mid since the BoM's search engine thinks that i mean mike brough "upper level".Jason Rees (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I've seen NHC often use "mid- to upper-level", since the mid should be connected with "level". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why should i follow what the NHC does when they use a different form of english to the BoM and didnt even offically monitor the system.Jason Rees (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, can you give an example of the BoM saying "mid to upper level" without any dashes? I think grammatically they are needed. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "before on 13 January" - I think "until" would work better than "before on" given the context.
      • I disagree here because it implies that Rewa stopped moving nortwards as it was renamed.Jason Rees (talk) 00:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, "before on" is rather unusual, and I don't think it's correct. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "around Papua New Guinea's islands" - which islands?
    • "Rewa's remnants were then last noted late during 23 January" - change to "Rewa's remnants were last noted late on 23 January". I don't think "during" works here, and the "then" isn't needed.
    • Are there any more pics of the storm that could be added to impact section?
    • The first sub-section of impact should be in the order of what areas are affected. Right now Vanuatu is first but is mentioned last.
    • "which made all of the major rivers overflow and burst their banks and left several roads closed" - bit of a run-on
      • Removed the bit about several roads.Jason Rees (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, the road bit is fine, since it's something that happened and is worth nothing. Maybe remove "burst their banks", since that's synonymous with "overflow". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The system had no effect on Vanuatu while it passed through the Solomon Islands between 28 and 30 December, however the southern islands of Vanuatu were affected by the cyclone after it had passed through New Caledonia during 5 January." - that should be split by a semicolon after "December"
    • Sorted.Jason Rees (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Be sure you're consistent with how you deal with dates. I saw "28 and 30 December" and "6–8 January" and "8 – 9 January".
      • I should be consistent now with only 1 exception due to it being over separate months.Jason Rees (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe link to the Copra crop?
      • Copra sounds like it is a well known crop within the South Pacific Islands, so i dont see that a link is needed.Jason Rees (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • " In total over 3500 people were made homeless, while 17 deaths were recorded in Papua New Guinea when Rewa was active with eight of these deaths being caused by flooding" - this could probably be clearer. Perhaps: "In total, Cyclone Rewa left over 3,500 people homeless and caused 17 deaths, 8 of whom due to flooding."
    • You say there were 8 deaths from flooding, and 9 deaths from that ship to Rossel Island. But, you say the 9 deaths were "other" than the 17 deaths. So what were the 9 remaining deaths from? If it was the 8 from flooding and only the 9 from that ship, then you should say "The other nine deaths were..." from that shipwreck missing and presumed dead.
      • Take a closer look - i do specify that the people were presumed dead later.Jason Rees (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I saw that, but the wording was ambiguous. Better now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • " On 29 December, the automatic weather station at Jingo on Rossel island, recorded a minimum pressure of 999.8 hPa (29.52 inHg) at 0600 UTC" - why the comma?
    • "because it was located about 600 km (370 mi) to the north-west of Mackay" - don't you mean north-east? Northwest of Mackay looks to still be over land.
    • "was a higher surf" - the "a" seems unnecessary.
      • I think it is necessary TBH since im describing what impact there was.Jason Rees (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • But "surf" isn't exactly a singular noun. The "a" seems weird. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Its not at all weird imo - try muttering the sentence with and without the a and im sure you will see that its required.Jason Rees (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I disagree, I read it out loud and it's just as awkward. Also, there should be a comma after waves in that sentence. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Two men off Yeppoon's coast were rescued from a fishing trawler by an army black hawk helicopter after high seas damaged the trawlers propeller and snapped its heavy anchor chain leaving the boat drifting helplessly in the cyclone's path" - add a comma please :)
  • That's it. It's in pretty good shape! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Few other things.

  • "to the southeast of Port Vila causing damage to the intertidal zone of Port Vila's harbour" - try and avoid the redundancy.
  • Avoid overlinking, and watch where you link terms. Sometimes you link to a location after the fourth time it was mentioned.

--♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • There was only one link that i saw, that was repeated.Jason Rees (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I mostly noticed it because you link Sudest and Samaurai islands twice in consecutive lines. Also, you link Rossel Island far after the first time it was mentioned. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm ready to support now. I think it's a great example of a long-lasting tropical cyclone article in the southern hemisphere, and I think it deserves to be featured. Great work Jason Rees! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Non-breaking spaces are missing in connection with ALL the dates in this article and seem to be missing in phrases such as category 4. They are needed to prevent carriage returns in the middle of related items, such as 50 mph (which was done properly) and 6 February (which had a carriage return in the middle and prompted me to look up the article's coding), which improves the article's readability (unlike my run-on sentence). Referencing issues have been noted as well. Remember, they need to be consistent through the article for FAC using the same format throughout. Ref 20 needs its title capitalized. Reference publishing dates appear to be missing in refs 3, 6, 15, and 17. There seems to be a number of styles used in the referencing itself...are you aiming at placing the author first, then the publishing year, then the title and other info? Some of the later references appear to use a different format. These silly little details matter within FAC, which is a cruel mistress. I'm trying to resolve the wikilink issues myself. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think i have fixed all of your issues DR, however Refs 6 and 15 lack publication dates full stop.Jason Rees (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Overall, I'm underwhelmed by the prose. Most of the article suffers from proseline, and while I understand that this is difficult to overcome when describing the track of a tropical storm, I don't think this article represents Wikipedia's finest work (per criteria 1a: "its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard"). I've listed some examples of things that could be tweaked, but think that the article would greatly benefit from a line-by-line prose check from someone not close to the text. Sasata (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok i have responded to all of your comments and i will also try and obtain a copyeditor to go through the article.Jason Rees (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
  • link tropical disturbance, tropical depression
  • shouldn't there be a link to cyclone somewhere in this article about a cyclone?
    • Ive added a link to tropical cyclone, but im not sure im happy about where ive put it.Jason Rees (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • link New Zealand earlier
  • Meteorological history
  • why are the abbreviations given in small-size upper case font?
  • The abbreviations are in small size as i personally think it looks better and is easier on the eye, while the abbreviations are in upper case because AFAIK that's how they are commonly done by various institutions including NOAA, JTWC and the WMO.Jason Rees (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Category" is capitalized in the lead, but not elsewhere in the body of the article
  • "920 hPa (27.17 inHg)" I think abbreviated units like these should should be linked at first mention in the text
  • "before it started to take a more eastwards track" eastwards -> easterly (?)
  • "the residual low level circulation" -> low-level
  • link trade flow (is it equivalent to trade wind?)
  • "During 10 January, Rewa's remnants moved out of the South Pacific basin and back into the Australian region while starting to re-intensify into a tropical cyclone as a mid to upper level trough over Eastern Australia increased in size." sentence feels run-on to me; could we add a comma after"cyclone"?
  • ensure that citations are in numerical order throughout (unless there's a compelling reason for them to not be so)
  • link Tagula Island
  • "as an upper level trough approached" -> upper-level
  • "before at 1200 UTC the next day the JTWC reported that the system" sounds awkward
  • "Rewa's remnants were last noted late on 23 January, by TCWC Wellington bringing heavy rain to New Zealand" TCWC Wellington brought rain?
  • I moved the comma so that this should be a bit clearer.Jason Rees (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preparations and impact
  • "while it affecting parts" fix
  • link archipelago, atoll
  • The article is rife with the passive voice, which makes the prose(line) dull and monotonous. Here is but one example:
  • "It was estimated by the Solomon Islands Meteorological Service that the cyclone had brought"
  • link gale force
  • "Cyclone Rewa affected Papua New Guinea on two separate occasions while it was active, with the cyclone first affecting" affected … affecting
  • "12-14 January endashes, not hyphens, for number ranges
  • "Ahead of Rewa affecting the archipelago" clunky noun +ing construction
  • "The hardest hit areas were communities that lay near major river systems, with the cyclone blocking roads, destroying a church, bridges, homes and gardens with vital crops such as coffee and copra destroyed." same as above
  • "The only indirect impact reported was a higher surf and long surface waves from which several people had to be rescued from before the cyclone started to move towards New Caledonia during 4 January." clunky
  • "On 18 January local disaster committees met to consider evacuating people while people who were on vacation in national parks, were alerted about Rewa by a helicopter." why the comma?
  • I removed the comma there before, this review was posted.Jason Rees (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – All the problems I had with this article a few weeks ago were brought up by Hurricanehink and addressed by you. Great job, JasonRees! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:43, 10 October 2012 [39].

We Can Do It![edit]

Nominator(s): Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article gives the reader startling information about the popular misconceptions surrounding the famous image. The article has been assessed as a Good Article and has undergone a peer review. After gaining access to Highbeam and thus the pivotal scholarly source by Kimble and Olson, I fleshed it out a bit more. I think it is ready for FAC. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check for glitches like doubled periods or quotation marks caused by templates Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not cite the journal version of this source? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean this? "Secrets of a Feminist Icon", Gwen Sharp and Lisa Wade, Sociological Images, Spring 2011, volume 10, number 2, pp. 82–83. ISSN 1536-5042. DOI 10.1177/1536504211408972. I have no problem replacing the one with the other, though they are not identical. Both the journal version (a B&W scan hosted on wordpress) and the blog version (hosted on "thesocietypages.org") have useful qualities. The blog has a color image of Rockwell's "Rosie the Riveter" painting and might be more accessible to some readers. The journal PDF scan has more text and a bunch of monochrome images showing how the poster has been used. Both are by Gwen Sharp and Lisa Wade, so both have a similar expert foundation. What do you recommend? Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComment. Good article. I query its global persective in 'legacy'. I don't know about other countries, but the image is pervasive in Australia, used not only by feminist / women's groups but also the labour movement. Examples:

Not sure if used in other countries in the same way? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hamiltonstone, for pervasive appearances of the poster I used references that specifically mentioned how the poster was used in popular media. The links you show here are not accompanied by any sort of explanation about the image. Neither of them refer to it at all. Such individual appearances or reworkings of the poster image are legion, but I don't want to fall into the trap of synthesis and original research by trying list as many as can be found, or even a representative sample. Instead, I looked for discussion about the image and quoted or summarized what was being discussed. Binksternet (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that, but as it stands the article reads as though this is an entirely American phenomenon, which it is not. I was just providing the links to help show that this is the case. I'm not suggesting you list them, but that the article as it stands doesn't provide a worldwide view of the subject. I understand that may present a difficulty to some degree if the scholarly sources you are using don't discuss the content outside the States. Yet I'd be reluctant to support a US-centric WP article just because the sources are US-centric. (Just to be clear I am obviously only talking about the "legacy" section of the article). Not sure of a good solution. I'd be interested in other editors' views... hamiltonstone (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This image of Julia Gillard worked into "We Can Do It!" allows us to name an Australian politician as one of the several politicians (not just American ones) who have had their faces pasted on the "We Can Do It!" figure. The page does not describe the image so we don't have a great source, just a minor item. suitable for putting an Australian into a list of politicians. Binksternet (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hamiltonstone, I have added a Gillard paragraph to the article, hoping that it would solve one problem without creating another. I wanted to address your observation that no other country was represented, but I did not want to push too far into original research. I would like you to assess the diff, check out the references (bare as they are) and tell me whether this paragraph is deserving. Binksternet (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My initial reaction is that this ticks the box of demonstrating that the appropriation / reuse of the image is not just a US phenomenon, but it does so using a relatively obscure example. Obviously Julia Gillard isn't obscure, but the artist and commentary in question is. I'm not sure how the sources are going to be considered in terms of RS (I mean flickr and tumblr). The use by people like AMWU is a bit more mainstream. But I understand that presents you with the problem of a lack of actual commentary. In those circumstances, perhaps you have come up with the most appropriate solution. But i'd webarchive the urls :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the danger of bringing that paragraph in is that the artist is not so very notable. The guy is picking up some notice, though; he's just about notable enough for a Wikipedia biography. At the BBC webpage, a bit about Phoenix says "Proving you do not have to be a young, rebellious teen to begin a street art career, this paste-up was created by “Phoenix”, a psychiatrist with his own grown-up children, who began creating pieces after taking a street art tour and being inspired to try it himself." (By Christa Larwood.) FatCap mentions him: "Street Art By Phoenix". He's listed on Wikipedia's Street art in Melbourne page. Beat Magazine wrote that Phoenix had a gallery showing: "Street Art Exhibition By Phoenix". So perhaps it is okay that we bring him in. By the way, I was unable to cache or archive the Flickr pages. Flickr is hosted by Yahoo; they are mortal enemies of Google and they do everything they can to keep Google from getting in their stuff. As a result, not even the Wayback Machine can archive a Flickr page. Binksternet (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to Support, as ccomments below dealt with. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Very nice article; a few points. Well done for your efforts to contact experts, recorded on the talk page.
  • "However, most observers credit Geraldine Hoff Doyle as the model for the image." - "observers" the right word? Maybe "sources", "commentators", "lazy jornalists" .... "Many" might be more cautious. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed "most observers" to "many commentators". Does that help? Binksternet (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect your screen is narrower than mine; on mine images 2&3 and 5&6 overlap, & there is a big white gap after 6. Always difficult to suit everyone, but I have rearranged so it looks better on wide screen, sacrificing exact placement by relevant text to overall layout, which is imo the way to go, and the way professionals do it. Feel free to revert.
  • My inner art historian would have liked to see a paragraph somewhere placing the image in a wider context of visual images of women at work (Vermeer, Courbet, Russian posters etc etc), which I suspect would be pretty easy to source. I can't pretend the article lacks comprehensiveness without this.

Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was prevented from writing a paragraph about the historiography of images of women at work because there were no good sources discussing how "We Can Do It!" was positioned within that field. For starters, nobody ties together Vermeer and Courbet and J. Howard Miller, the artist of this poster. In my search for sources discussing context I only found writers who made wrong assumptions, embracing the common misconceptions about the poster: that it was used to recruit women workers, that it was famous during the war, that it was produced by the US government and that it was empowering to women. The biggest problem is with writers conflating "We Can Do It!" with Norman Rockwell's painting Rosie the Riveter or with the general "Rosie the Riveter" wartime meme. Once Kimble and Olson destroyed those misconceptions in 2006 I was loathe to base a section on disproved or flawed writings, sources that obviously did not perform any kind of research on the poster before launching into speculative interpretation.
Kimble and Olson devote quite a lot of text to the Rosie the Riveter concept in order to show how the "We Can Do It!" poster was never part of it until after 1982. I think our Wikipedia article on "We Can Do It!" is best served by briefly summarizing the conclusions of Kimble and Olson. I don't think we need to expand into a greater discussion of images of women at work since the conclusion will always be that "We Can Do It!" was only minimally engaged during its intended viewing period: two weeks during 1943. Misinformed sources such as this 2009 editorial in The Economist are not much help in setting the context of the poster in today's world. The greater discussion about images of working women is much more appropriate in its own article, perhaps titled Images of women at work, or the narrower Images of women in war production. Some of the discussion could be at the Rosie the Riveter article insofar as that article is the de facto catchall for images of American wartime production work performed by women. Other options could be an images section in Women in the workforce, Women's roles in the World Wars, Home front during World War II, or United States home front during World War II. I think it would be too tangential if the general idea of images of working women is positioned within this one poster article. Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well written, meticulously referenced with reliable sources, great deal of research efforts as noted on the talk page, good succinct language usage, high educational value, highly encyclopedic content. Excellent job! — Cirt (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:43, 10 October 2012 [40].

USS Lexington (CV-2)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing with the theme of battlecruisers converted into aircraft carriers as the result of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, I present the history of the American carrier USS Lexington (CV-2). Completed in the late 1920s, she and her sister ship, Saratoga, were instrumental in developing the Navy's carrier doctrine before World War II. Interestingly this included multiple successful attacks on Pearl Harbor during fleet exercises. The ship was not present at Pearl Harbor when the Japanese attacked, but was heavily involved in attacking Japanese forces in the first half of 1942 until she was sunk at the Battle of the Coral Sea in May, the first American carrier lost in the war. The article just passed a MilHist A-class review a week ago and is in pretty good shape. Experience has taught me, however, that there are always flaws and I look forward to getting them fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class, and made a tweak. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Compare FNs 2 and 69
    • Clarified.
  • I get an error message when clicking on the Herts link, and it's missing publisher
    • Yeah, IO error streaming document; whatever the hell that means. Not sure what to do about it.
  • Don't duplicate full bibliographic info between the two ref sections, and especially don't use different formatting when doing so
  • Patterson and Polmar both need endashes in volume titles. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Because it's data is derived from the hits mentioned in the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support the image. Images should be fairly accurate, of course, and this image represents reliably sourced facts. I'm not in love with the parallel magenta lines and the parallel red lines making it seem as if the hits were from the same two sources, but the general idea comes across okay. Binksternet (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you link publishers in web refs, link them all if they exist. Some may not have a wiki article but I know NYT does. Pls check others.
PumpkinSky talk 19:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Linked NYT, there's no article for the Waterloo Daily Courier. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet comments
  • Why are there two quoted avgas capacities from the same source? Anderson & Baker, p 311.
    • I guess that the records are unclear because that's how Anderson & Baker present the data.
  • Should "since the ship had commissioned" be presented as "since the ship had been commissioned"?
    • Yes, good catch.
  • This sentence seems quite wrong in facts: "She carried a maximum of 6,688 long tons (6,795 t) of fuel oil, but only 5,400 long tons (5,500 t) of that was usable, as the rest had to be retained as ballast in the port fuel tanks to offset the weight of the island and main guns." The fuel in the port tanks could be replaced by sea water for ballast.
    • Perhaps those particular tanks couldn't weren't equipped to add sea water? I'm just reporting what A & B said about the situation.
      • Okay, I see the sources are in agreement. Friedman 1984 page 44 agrees that Lexington and Saratoga had to be ballasted "through most of their operating lives... at the expense of usable fuel oil" to balance the inherent list. Friedman says on page 49 that about 890 t of oil was used as ballast, "for a considerable reduction in useful fuel load." Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In adjoining paragraphs, there are two wikilinks for conning tower, one being a piped link to conning station. Do you want them both to be present?
    • Yes, the piped link refers to the secondary conning station.
  • At the time Heinlein reported aboard he was not "noted" but a future sci-fi writer.
  • The bit about Berrien being captain when Heinlein reported aboard is awkward, a loose detail. Perhaps the whole Heinlein sentence can be recast in this manner: "Future science fiction author Robert A. Heinlein reported aboard on 6 July as a newly minted ensign under Captain Frank Berrien."
  • To help the Heinlein bit seem not so out of place, it could be expanded with the fact that Heinlein experienced his first literary rejection aboard ship. He wrote a short story about espionage discovered at the Naval Academy and submitted it for a shipboard writing contest but it did not win. Cite: James, Robert (July 2003). "Afterword: A Clean Sweep". In Heinlein, Robert A. (ed.). For Us, The Living: A Comedy of Customs. Simon and Schuster. p. 244. ISBN 0743261577.
    • Good idea.
  • At least some of the term "Cushman Dam No. 1." should be prevented from wrapping to the next line. I first saw it with the "No." at the end of one line and the "1." at the beginning of the next.
    • Added a non-breaking space.
  • The phrase "which subsequently ruled sunk" should probably be "which subsequently was ruled sunk".
    • Indeed.
  • The phrase "For this operation, she embarked 21 Buffalos" probably should say "For this operation, Lexington embarked 21 Buffalos", because Saratoga is mentioned just prior.
    • Agreed.
  • The phrase "The Japanese, however, landed on the island" should probably be "The Japanese, however, landed on Wake", because a discussion of the details of the attack on the Marshalls is just preceding.
    • OK.
  • The phrase "one Dauntless was shot down by the Zero" probably should end with "a Zero".
    • No, there was only one Zero flying at the time.
  • The rest of the above sentence says "after it had pulled out of its dive and several others were damaged." This is clunky.
  • The wording is not so clear here: "This broadcast on a frequency very close to that of the American ships..." How about this? "The Japanese carriers put out a frequency very close to that of the American ships..."
    • I've rephrased it a bit, although I really don't see the issue as it was.
  • The phrase "doing little significant damage" could be trimmed to "doing little damage".
    • No, there was plenty of damage, but it was from splinters and negligible in effect on the ship.
  • Regarding this sentence: "The remaining bombs detonated close alongside and some of their fragments pierced the hull, flooding two compartments." The usual pattern of damage from bombs being dropped very near a ship is not "fragments" piercing the hull but massive pressure waves hammering the welded plates underwater, bending them and forcing them to fracture, allowing water to pour into the ship.
    • I understand, and I don't disagree, but that's not what Lundstrom says.
  • Why the disparity between 2,770 rescued and 2,735 evacuated? Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure, but I suspect that Lundstrom is including the aircrew from the aircraft still in the air when she was badly damaged as rescued. He doesn't break it down in detail to be sure one way or another. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The observation the Navy "was not convinced when the class was being designed that aircraft could effectively substitute as armament for a warship" is correct, but it does not include Friedman's assessment that the predicted absence of foul weather aircraft operations was the key point in deciding to keep eight 8-inch guns. Guns were thought to be required for foul weather defense. Friedman writes that Lexington and Saratoga "demonstrated an ability to operate aircraft in weather conditions quite beyond what might have been imagined when they were designed." A bit about bad weather should be inserted. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea; I added a bit to the first sentence of the armament section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:43, 10 October 2012 [41].

Boulonnais horse[edit]

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another French draft horse breed, again expanded with the significant help of French editor User:Tsaag Valren with regard to sources and translations. This went through a GA review several years ago, and was then significantly expanded earlier this year. I think it should be good to go for FA review! Thanks in advance for your comments, Dana boomer (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good article that deserves to be featured.--Lucky102 (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - OK. All images are public domain and have author and source information. 4 CC-tagged and 1 PD-1923 (fixed that one with US-tag). GermanJoe (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, GermanJoe! Dana boomer (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN1: suggest using "at" parameter rather than page
  • Very cool! I didn't even know that parameter existed... - DB
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Done, I think. - DB
  • Check that all foreign-language sources are notated as such - FN10, for example, isn't
  • Done, I think. I did miss rather a lot of them, didn't I ? :) - DB
  • I can't find one for this book, and WorldCat doesn't list one... Thoughts? - DB
  • Ah, I'm an idiot... Thanks, I've added that in. Dana boomer (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, as always, for the source review, Nikki! At least I didn't have any doubled periods this time. :) Dana boomer (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Dana boomer. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • "contributed to the problem in inbreeding." might be better as "contributed to the problem of inbreeding."
  • "consumers considered it to have some of the best meat available", possibly consider "consumers considered it to be some of the best meat available"
PumpkinSky talk 19:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, PumpkinSky! I believe I have addressed both of your comments. Dana boomer (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Cwmhiraeth
  • I find the image captions uninspiring. I understand that the subject of the article should not be included in the caption.
  • Do you have suggestions for the captions? Also, what guideline says that the subject should not be included in the caption? - DB
  • Jimfbleak told me in the Common toad review that it was a guideline. You could just have "Young stallion" for example. The engraving caption could mention the name of the engraver. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but which guideline? I've never seen the guideline that says this, and (no offense to Jim, he's a great reviewer) anything cited an un-named guideline should be double checked. I've tweaked a couple of the image captions to remove the name of the breed, but think that "young stallion" is ambiguous. I can't find the name of the engraver for the 1861 image. Dana boomer (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Cwmhiraeth, I am a minor contributor to this article, so I can't be a reviewer here, nor do I want to substantially intervene in the process, but in this situation, with all due respect, you are missing the importance of style and flow; have you forgotten that Jimofbleak also stated "most of the images don't need the name, but some...might read better with it in"? This is such a case; the caption changes Dana made per your suggestions are now clunky and of poor structure; they were better the first way. I am going to revise them a bit. I'm not trying to create drama, but this is not working for a featured article, it's the form of a guideline without the substance. WP:IAR. Montanabw(talk) 19:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I've tweaked them again to remove the breed names, while still keeping some of your changes. If this is a guideline (and I'd still like to see that guideline), then at this point the majority of the captions don't include the breed name, and should be good. We're already IAR on a couple of images that I didn't change, and calling IAR on 4 out of 5 images is going overboard. However, I'd still like to see that guideline... Dana boomer (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there IS a guideline that says this, I think it's a misinterpretation, but I also don't really care; the changed captions just sounded clunky. I won't argue further about the matter. Montanabw(talk) 06:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines or not, I think the caption for the horse's head image is better than the original. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is not to link the article name in a caption (or anywhere else in the article of course) for obvious reasons. It is pure nonsense to construct contrived phrasing in a caption to try to meet ill-informed commentary. There is is a caption in the current version that reads " A modern member of the breed ..." - changed from "A modern Boulonnais ...". How can anybody seriously think that is an improvement? I'd oppose this candidature on the basis that the process has resulted in a worsening of a perfectly good article. --RexxS (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've reverted the one caption to "A modern Boulonnais...", since a couple of people have commented on that (and I agree it was clunky). Dana boomer (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The breed has a full chest, rounded rib cage and a sloping shoulder." Is this use of the word "breed" correct? Are not these in fact breed traits?
  • Tweaked. Better? - DB
  • The sentence "breeders began to again prefer darker colors such as bay and chestnut" has a split infinitive.
  • I believe I have fixed this. - DB
  • "... encouraged the conversion of nine draft horse breeds, including the Boulonnais, from pulling horses to meat horses." I think the sentence is ambiguous. Who or what was pulling the horses?
  • Personally, I think the context of the sentence makes this unambiguous. However, if you have alternate wording to suggest, I'm definitely open to other options... - DB
  • What about "... proposed that nine draft horse breeds, including the Boulonnais, were recategorized from pulling horses to meat horses." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to a minorly tweaked version of your proposed wording. Thanks again! Dana boomer (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 2009 study of French equine genetics theorized that the Boulonnais ..." - would not "proposed" be a better word?
  • Changed. Thanks for the look-through and the comments! Dana boomer (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it needs a copy edit for more elegant wording and easier reading. I think the wordiness could be reduced (though I don't know anything about writing horse articles). Examples with suggestions from the lede only:
  • "It is known for its elegant, though large, appearance and is usually gray, although chestnut and black are also allowed by the French breed registry. e.g. "though large" ... "although chestnut and black are also allowed ..." - is there a more elegant way of saying this?
  • I've tweaked the first bit, but don't have an idea for how the second part could be said differently (or why it should be, it seems fine to me). - DB
  • "There were originally several sub-types of the Boulonnais, but they were crossbred until only one is seen today." - (suggestion) Originally there were several sub-types but were crossbred and only one is seen today.
  • The suggestion is ungrammatical. I have, however, made a run through the article removing "Boulonnais" in places (including here) were I can do so without changing the meaning of the sentence. - DB
  • "The breed almost went extinct following World War II, but experienced a rebound in France in the 1970s as it became a popular breed for producing horse meat." (suggestion)"The breed nearly became extinct following World War II, but rebounded in France in the 1970's as a popular breed for horse meat."
  • Changed. - DB
  • " mostly in France with a few found in other nations." (suggestion): mostly in France and a few found in other nations."
  • Changed. - DB
  • "Studies as early as 1983 found a danger of inbreeding with the Boulonnais population and a 2009 report suggested that the breed should be a priority for conservation within France." (another "found" - suggestion): As early as 1983 studies indicated the danger of inbreeding, and a 2009 report suggested that conservation of the Boulonnais breed should be a priority within France.
  • I've tweaked to remove the "found", but the rewording suggestion moves the subject of the sentence to too late in the article, as the first clause could theoretically refer to inbreeding as a whole, rather than within this specific breed. - DB
  • "The smallest type of Boulonnais was originally used to pull carts full of fresh fish from Boulogne to Paris, while the larger types were used for heavy draft work, both on farms and in the cities. It has also been used to create and refine several other draft breeds. - three "used" in two sentences. (is there another way to word this without repeating "used"?) MathewTownsend (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC) p.s. and repetition of "types" twice in the first sentence? MathewTownsend (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mathew, thanks for the review! I've made a run through the full article to try to reduce occurrences of several words that I have a bad habit of using too much (types, used, found, also among them), and have replied to your comments above. Dana boomer (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's a stability issue at the moment, 6 reverts in the past day or so. Really people, stop with the edit warring, you all know better. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know. There is a user attempting to impose their citation preferences, despite WP:CITEVAR, with a couple of people reverting him, as well as some generic back and forth. I'm working via e-mail and talk pages to hopefully get this calmed down. (Mathew, this is why I haven't responded to your comments; we're trying to get this little tempest settled first.). Dana boomer (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that issue is over. Dana, if everyone else is OK, can you restore what is the last "clean" version without any concerns from the reviewers and we can proceed from there? Montanabw(talk) 20:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Support Comments by Jim Usual thorough(bred) coverage, but a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me?

  • Studies as early as 1983 found a danger of inbreeding with the Boulonnais population—shouldn't that be "within the Boulonnais population "?
  • The smallest type of Boulonnais was originally used to pull carts full of fresh fish from Boulogne to Paris, while the larger types—avoid repeat of "type"?
  • It has also—follows sentence above, so "it" refers to "The smallest type". Is that what you intended?
  • almost destroyed the breed, as their home area —"its home area"?
  • Fréthun alone is found —Fréthun's genes are found… ?
  • …Nord-Pas-de-Calais alone,[8] a few are exported..—'I'm not sure that the end of this sentence is grammatical
  • In ref 18 you have written in the word "volume", in other refs you have just bolded the volume number. Unless I've missed something, you should be consistent.
  • Thanks for the comments, Jim! I believe I have addressed everything; please let me know if there was anything I missed. Dana boomer (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Dana. I fixed a newly created typo (pullied) and ran the duplicate links detector, which I should have done first time through. Found three. "hands" is template-generated, more trouble than it's worth to fix, "stud farm" is piped on one occurrence, so gave benefit of doubt, Fixed "Arabian horse" myself.
  • I always forget to double check the hands templates...it's a pretty easy fix (just "lk=off"), if I can remember. Thanks again! Dana boomer (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "There were originally several sub-types" should be "Originally there were several sub-types"
  • Move first image inside breed characteristics to right side as per MOS:IMAGELOCATION
  • Above two done. - DB
  • External links?
  • All potential external links have been integrated into the references. - DB
  • None that I can think of. - DB

TBrandley 20:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, TBrandley. I have replied in-line. Dana boomer (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on all criteria, now that all of my above concerns have been addressed correctly. TBrandley 03:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:43, 10 October 2012 [42].

OK Computer[edit]

Nominator(s): Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this should be a featured article because, for an album that has proven to have central and lasting significance in popular music history, I'm confident that this article reaches the highest standard for completeness, depth of research and quality of writing. It's been a long time coming, with on-and-off work from many editors over the course of several years now, and the feeling is that the article is ready for the FAC process. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comment - Like Brandt, I'm a member of WikiProject Alternative music and have contributed my fair share to the article (though certainly not as much as him). First thing I notice is that some of the newspaper/magazine article refs cite pages and some don't. Be consistent on whether or not you're going to include page numbers for them (page numbers aren't mandatory for newspaper and magazine pieces, by the way). WesleyDodds (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the page numbers for magazine and newspaper articles, since the information is not available for all of the sources. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

(disclaimer: I'm a member of WP:ALM and had the article in my watchlist for a while)

  • The lead sentence has two dates, neither of which is the one in infobox. I understand why that's so, but it's still confusing. I suggest simplifying to "released in (mid- ?) 1997 on Parlophone and Capitol."
  • Simplified
  • Overlinking: end credits, motorways, aeroplanes, copyright notice and other common terms.
  • Trimmed the ones you mentioned, will check for more.
  • Length: this is my only real concern. Yes, this article is comprehensive as can be but does it become too overwhelming? For eg, Critical reception: if the praise was near-unanimous, why quote fourteen similar-sounding reviews at length?
  • Will review
  • I majorly curbed the quotes in Critical reception. I think now it's summarized pretty well. I'll likely shorten the reception to the reissues as well.
  • Shortened the reissue section by a paragraph.
  • The Tracks sections, too, are very long and exhausting reads; I think several quotes and descriptions can be trimmed. For eg: any one of ' "cacophonous", "claustrophobic", "monumental chaos" ' can describe that song. Also, remember that this section is to discuss the songs' music and lyrics, not whether they are good or bad ("the dark heart of the masterpiece [OK Computer] or the most skippable track in the Radiohead canon.").
  • Will review, and removed the quote you mentioned.
  • Reviewed these sections and took out the parts I felt were extraneous. Feel free to review this further. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another issue of excessive detail—""—technical details like this (with brand names) are probably unnecessary as well. Wouldn't just "delay pedal" suffice?—indopug (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also check that the article doesn't repeat itself; for example millennialism in both Critical reception and Cultural response. "Lucky" stuff in Tracks and Background.
  • Will review.
  • I fixed both the cases you brought up. The only other redundancy I've found is the progressive rock comparisons at the ends of Critical reception and Musical influence sections, but in this case I think it's justified because it's in different contexts. But let me know what you think about that particular instance. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gang of Four's Andy Gill does not review records for the Independent. :)
  • Fixed
  • Refs for notes 4,5,6? (move from main text to here so the prose isn't cluttered)
  • Moved (good call)
  • Why don't you use regular <ref> tags in the notes as well?—indopug (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tested this out when I first added the notes, but it doesn't seem to be possible in WikiML to embed references (even of a different group) within references. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are art rock, post-Britpop and New Labour in quotes?
  • Fixed
  • IMO year-end awards and accolades are not retrospective reception but contemporary; para 1 of Retro should be in Critical accalaim.
  • Moved
  • Sorry to be blunt, but those four pullout quotes are rather dull, and repetitive of stuff already said. If you want a pullout quote, why not Chris Martin?
  • I took out the Stipe and Marr quotes, since they said virtually the same things, and not particularly original things either. I think the Davis and Lavelle quotes have some impact and add something. The idea of throwing up the Martin quote is tantalizing, but I really don't want to emphasize something that inane :P.
  • Copyediting needed: "work on the artwork" stands out, plenty of sentences can be trimmed to remove redundancy. But no big issues. (I'll chip in later)
  • Will review
  • I fixed the example you brought up. I've been gradually fixing cases of awkward wording as I find them.
  • Started copy-editing. Removed the five-member introduction as I don't think anybody who doesn't know them already will be able to remember five new names at a stretch. Best to introduce them as they come up in the prose.—indopug (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)—[reply]
  • Why isn't Greg Kot in the review box?
  • Fixed
  • Pitchfork and PopMatters shouldn't be italicised; check the others (check their wiki-article if you're not sure).
  • Fixed, although I think they should be italicized despite being online only (the only reason I can think of for why they aren't). --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, this is an excellent article that only needs a trim for repetitions and minor details to be FA-worthy.—indopug (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've responded to all the major points. One unresolved point is when to introduce the band since Dodds liked it. I'm fine with either way. We could await further comments, or you guys could duke it out. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't see the point of having a photo of Tony Blair in the 'Commentary and interpretation' section just because Yorke criticized Blair. It's like saying, "In case you were wondering what Blair looks like, here's a picture of him." Seems kind of irrelevant to the album to me. --Viennese Waltz 13:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's any more irrelevant than the pictures of Davis or Chomsky. It's not necessary, but I think it's nevertheless relevant and useful. It helps to color the article a bit and provide historical context. It also captures Blair very close to the time that Yorke made his criticisms; I would not have used a photo of Blair anytime before 97 or after 98. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Some suggestions though. I revised the Chicago Tribune score (they use a four-star scale), so perhaps the sentence "Reviewers for Entertainment Weekly,[127] the Chicago Tribune,[126] and Time[136] were mixed or contained qualified praise." shouldn not include that publication. The two "tracks" subsections seem to veer from the preceding subsections' prose about the album in more general terms, instead detailing each song in specific. Maybe "tracks" should be under a separate "content" or "songs" section. Also, I'm not sure if a singles chart is necessary, as they each have their own article. Otherwise, superb and interesting article. Dan56 (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this album was certified in the US, UK and Canada. I made a certification table that could be placed in a section below the charts per WP:ALBUMSEL, at my sandbox here. Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there's only three certifications worldwide, we probably don't need the table, just prose, though it would be handy if there were, say, more than five, to give a number. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Found three more for six certifications. Dan56 (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With six certs, I'm not opposed to adding a table in a "Chart positions and certifications" section. My only concern is the way those certification templates treat references. I'd want to reuse references from earlier in the article and archive links when possible. Is there a way to get around the default reference settings? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Used the "certref" parameter to create manual citations from the template's original links and archived them using WebCite; RIAA and BPI websites cant be archived correctly, so whatever preceding reference in the article that cited them can have its "ref name" anchor placed in the "certref" parameter in their respective certification template. BTW, certifications should probably have their own section as suggested by the style guide. Dan56 (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added it to the article. Thanks for the support! --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In-depth comments The article is looking pretty good, but there's some stuff that should be addressed before I can give my support:

  • The flow of the lead paragraphs is fairly choppy. Ex. "OK Computer was the first self-produced Radiohead album, with assistance from Nigel Godrich.", "The band made a deliberate attempt to distance themselves from the guitar-oriented, lyrically introspective style of their previous album, The Bends. OK Computer's abstract lyrics, densely layered sound and wide range of influences laid the groundwork for Radiohead's later, more experimental work."
  • How would you suggest rewording it? I've tried to be as simple as possible in the lead.
  • The content is sound; it's more the flow is choppy, especially compared to the rest of the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The note describing the sound of The Bends is not necessary for context.
  • I like it, it sums up the band's sound from Pablo Honey onward and catches the reader up on Radiohead so far. It's not vitally necessary, but I think that makes it a good note as opposed to part of the main prose.
  • It's pretty superfluous. "In 1995, Radiohead were touring in support of their acclaimed second album The Bends" tells readers all they need to know to jump into this article. If they want to know anything further, they can just go to The Bends. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Midway through the tour, Brian Eno requested them" sounds awkward.
  • Reworded
  • Trim or paraphrase that quote from Jonny about the Dire Straits records on Jane Seymour's wall.
  • Trimmed
  • Looking at an earlier version of the Recording section, I note that some details I added way back when about Yorke's dominance in the recording session early on and his own opinion of why Canned Applause was unsatisfactory have been removed. The bit about Yorke being "the loudest voice" should definitely be restored.
  • Restored; not sure when or why these bits left.
  • The track-by-track breakdown is overly-detailed; that's where a lot of the article's excess length is coming from, in my opinion. With the singles, especially, there's details included better suited for the individual articles, as they don't have much to do with OK Computer as a whole. The standard options for covering the musical content of albums have typically involved the extremes of sticking to a broad summary like you and I did on Loveless (album) way back when (Remember that one? Good times.), or giving each song its own article (which given the depth of sources, could be doable). However, I posit pioneering a third option: split the track-by-track breakdown into a subarticle called Songs of OK Computer or something like that. Such an article would allow you to cover songs that aren't notable enough to have their own articles, and would prevent this article from getting bogged down with minutiae.
  • Including each song was inspired by Blonde on Blonde—And the section in OK Computer is actually shorter than that one. A couple other Dylan albums (and now Kid A) are written song-by-song. I don't think right now that an entire subarticle would be a good idea, but maybe if it gets to the point where every OK Computer song has its own article then this section could be diminished.
  • I have to say, I find the track section in Blonde on Blonde very inelegant, especially considering each song from that album has its own article. If I had been at that FAC, I would've raised some hard questions about it. But enough of that article: the main difference between these two pages is that this one is nearly twice as long as the Blonde on Blonde article, even if the track-by-track breakdown here is shorter. At 119kb, this page is well past the point where splitting into subarticles starts becoming an option (see WP:SIZERULE). The song details are the most logical elements to spin off. As I mentioned above possible options are to move the song details that aren't directly relevant to OK Computer as a whole into the song articles, or make a "Songs of OK Computer" subarticle where you can more or less move the whole Tracks paragraphs wholesale and add "main article" links where appropriate (such a subpage would not necessitate that every song have its own article). Either way, there's got to be a more concise way to discuss the music without going point-by-point--that's fine for a book, a bit of a drag for an encyclopedia article. Also, it'll help you cut down on the amount of non-free media currently in the article (currently at six items: three soundclips and three images). WesleyDodds (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that the best thing to do is going to be to pare it all down into like two or three paragraphs and then split off all the individual songs. I really do think that this is one of the few albums that could merit each song having an article, much like Blonde on Blonde or up-and-comer My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy. I just know it's going to be a tremendous amount of work to do it right. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth one of the songs dissected in detail in the book Inside Classic Rock Tracks that I own is "Let Down". WesleyDodds (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, the song sections have been removed from Kid A; they were added by an IP who sourced it entirely to a fan-site.—indopug (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the material in Release and Promotion could be rearranged to be either neater chronologically or neater thematically. Currently in that section, you have the band releasing the album worldwide between May and June, then embarking on a world tour that starts in May 1997 and runs until August 1998, then they go back to releasing "Paranoid Android" as the lead single, then the album debuts on the charts.
  • I rearranged this section to make more chronological sense.
  • This read much better. Though now I wonder, can you dig up a secondary source to verify the months of release for the "Karma Police" and "No Surprises" singles? WesleyDodds (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyhit is not considered a reliable source.
  • Fixed
  • Interesting inconsistency among the sources. Randall (and I think Harris, too, but I haven't double-checked) say "Paranoid Android" did not receive much radio play, but Melody Maker says it did.
  • From the Paranoid Android article: "As the song's popularity grew, Radio 1 played it up to 12 times a day." That's over an hour of "Paranoid Android" every day. I think we can come down on the side that it got played a lot.
  • The cite for the album's US sales is missing a publication title.
  • Fixed
  • You shouldn't link internally to the article when discussing the sales certifications.
  • Fixed
  • As I've mentioned to you before, the review boxes are unnecessary, particularly in this article where the books describe critical consensus very effectively. But they are optional, so keep 'em if you like. But you don't need them.
  • Eh, gonna keep 'em. I know the boxes aren't needed but I feel like it's an uphill battle to eliminate them and people seem to think they're useful.
  • The BBC Lusk review shouldn't be used to cite factual information, as it is currently used in the Commentary and interpretation and Musical influence sections. A review is an opinion piece after all, not reporting or a historical analysis.
  • Replaced by two historically inclined sources.
  • I think that note explaining what Britpop is and how it decline becomes unnecessary if you move the Harris info up to the top. As I recall from the Britpop book, he explicitly contrasts the arrival of OK Computer with the decline of Britpop in the pages cited.
  • Probably, but I think it's worth an explanatory note to sum up Britpop and its decline. I think Harris's quotes makes the most thematic sense where they are now.
  • This could probably be trimmed down, though. I'll try to take a stab at it myself soon. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Good luck with Kid A!" sentence is fun to read, but for context you don't need it. End the paragraph after cite 173, because by running on to include the "Good luck with Kid A!" bit, then the paragraph starts to move too far away from OK Computer.
  • I have considered removing this before, but I think this actually has much more to do with OK Computer than Kid A. I mean, this exactly encapsulates the band's (well, Yorke's... so, the band's) response to OK Computer's influence. I know it comes after, but it's a look back at OK Computer
  • "Radiohead described the pervasiveness of bands that "sound like us" as one reason to break with the style of OK Computer for their next album, Kid A." is a pretty satisfactory end to the paragraph. By adding that extra line, though, then it starts to become more about Kid A, which makes for a jarring transition when in the next paragraph we have to return to OK Computer. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you could find a source that states a lot of musicians have praised the album, that would do away with the need to painstakingly itemize each plaudit someone in a band has given the album.
  • I honestly like how it is right now, with the lists out of the main text but still there for reference. I think a quote saying "lots of people like this album" or "lots of bands sound like this" doesn't do the same thing as actually demonstrating where the influence has materialized.
  • It's more authoritative and more elegant to find a single source that condenses the praise; that would eliminate the need for the note which merely rattles off the many names of musicians who like the album. The praise that appears in the article body and the pull quotes will balance it out so that the broad statements have some grounding in specifics. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, this part I still want to defend. I feel like any one quote is gonna simplify it to an abstract cloud of influence, whereas this way the exact prominent musicians impacted by the album are documented and cited for the curious reader. It does rattle a bit, yes, but it's out of the main text and I think the inelegance is worth the precision. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think you need to list all the prog bands mentioned by the Guardian in a note unless the article says they were explicitly inspired by Radiohead and OK Computer.
  • Removed, good catch.
  • You have four citations for the sentence "The reissue was connected in the press to a general upswing in vinyl sales and cultural appreciation of records as a format". Any way to pair this down? I would hope one would suffice.
  • I think all of them are necessary—there isn't one source saying precisely that "The press thinks OK Computer is a very important album in the vinyl upswing," but they all mention it as a prominent reissue and a top seller, so it's clear that the album got a lot of mentions in the press.
  • The Tiny Mix Tapes article is quoting the Rolling Stone post also cited, so one of them can go. The Chicago Tribune article mentions the vinyl reissue in passing, in a way that's redundant to other sources. Possibly use the Independent source to cite the reissue program, as that one ties it into the upsurge in vinyl sales. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a more factual source to back up the statement that the rerelease was not remastered? Otherwise we're trusting a reviewer for that info.
  • I think it's telling that none of the other reviews or announcements of the reissues mention that the albums had been remastered, seeing as this would have been a highly relevant feature of the reissues if a remaster had taken place.
  • But if no one really made a fuss about it not being remastered aside from one reviewer (and even then, how does he know? Did he interview someone or cite a source to verify his claim?) then it's not really worth including. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I recall, "Bibliography" is not a recommended header for a section listing books cited, as it can also mean books written by a subject.
  • Changed
  • As a kind of idle aside, I'm surprised the Guitar World "Golden Age of Radiohead" article is not cited more in the Music section, given that's a publication that specifically deals with musical theory, performance, songwriting, production, and insight, as opposed to more critically-geared musical publications like the Rolling Stone and Spins of the world.
  • I reviewed the article, and there's a reason it's not used extensively in the music section. Almost 3/4 of the article has to do with the band's pre-OK Computer history, and very little to do with the music on OK Computer. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to seeing all my points addressed. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as we continue to work out solutions to the last remaining points, I want to say that in any event this article is very, very close to being the best album article Wikipedia has ever offered, and for that I congratulate BLZ for his extensive and long-running efforts to bring it to this point. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated :) --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final comments
  • On several occasions you have listed out names of publications that makes for inelegant reading: "NME,[85] Melody Maker,[136] The Guardian,[70] and Q.[82]", "Rolling Stone,[131] Spin,[38] and Pitchfork Media[130]", "Entertainment Weekly,[129] the Chicago Tribune,[128] and Time[138]", "Mojo, Vox, Entertainment Weekly, Hot Press, Muziekkrant OOR, HUMO, Eye Weekly and Inpress", "NME, Melody Maker, Rolling Stone, Village Voice, Spin and Uncut. Q and Les Inrockuptibles", "NME, Melody Maker, Alternative Press,[145] Spin,[146] Pitchfork Media,[147] Time[148] and Slant[149]", "BBC Music,[151] The A.V. Club[152] Slant[153] and Paste[154]", "Allmusic,[190] Uncut,[195] Q,[194] Rolling Stone[193] and PopMatters[198]"—eight instances, all within a short space of each other.
  • There are several ways to deal with the above. I'll leave you to choose what's appropriate (with only a few suggestions)
  • Leave as is (the "It topped the year-end polls" list is necessary, I think)
  • Create into a note (the "The album came second" list)
  • Remove list completely from prose and bundle refs in the sentence into a single one. (The reissues list and the mixed-reviews list)
  • As for the Tracks sections, if they were transferred a separate songs article, I think it the remaining music and lyrics info would need beefing up.
  • A slightly out-of-the-box suggestion: I've seen Tony recommend at FAC the removal of "chain links" in articles with a high-density of linking. Eg: in 'Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody"' or 'Bob Dylan song "Subterranean Homesick Blues"', you delink the artist, as the adjacent song/album/book/movie linked-article would anyway have it. I won't press on this (it might have it's own disadvantages), but it might help reduce the sea of blue in sentences like '"Fall on Me" by R.E.M., "Dress" by PJ Harvey and "A Day in the Life" by The Beatles'.
  • Why does "Critics have compared the style of the guitar-playing to Pink Floyd and, more broadly, arena rock" need to be backed by four cites?—indopug (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Regardless of the above comments, as Wesley says this article is one of the best album articles on Wikipedia (my favourite remains Loveless, also yours, but that has an inherently better story). It is definitely worthy of the album itself. I look forward to seeing several more from you.—indopug (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments reading through now. I'll make straightforward tweaks as I go and jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK Computer was the first self-produced Radiohead album, with assistance from Nigel Godrich. - album title mentioned in the sentence before, and "Radiohead" used in both preceding and following sentence. Can we possibly reword.....
In the lyrics subsection, both paras begin with "Yorke's lyrics..." - can this be tweaked as it is a tad repetitious...
Scanning down from Critical reception, I count seven paras starting with "OK Computer...." - bit repetitious. If you really can't find an alternate way then ok.
with direct comparisons to Pink Floyd's 1973 album The Dark Side of the Moon cropping up frequently among critics and fans - are the last 4 words necessary?

To be honest though, I am reduced to minor nitpicks....nice read and I think we're over the line prose- and comprehensiveness-wise. I did see some words I wondered whether we could remove but wasn't 100% sure it wouldn't introduce ambiguity. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 7 October 2012 [43].

The Truth (The X-Files)[edit]

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final episode (technically, episodes) of the American sci-fi series The X-Files and it features the return of Fox Mulder! I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is of FA quality. The article is comprehensive in nature, with sections on plot, production, themes, and reception. Furthermore, it is illustrated by free images and properly cited. Currently, the episode is a good article, having been promoted earlier this year. It has recently undergone a peer-review and was copy-edited a few days ago. I feel it is ready for the the next big step. Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know I am the article's copy-editor. But, I suggest withdrawing this nomination. As noted above in the instructions, you have to wait two weeks before nominating something new, since your first one was passed just today. Regards. TBrandley 19:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's talking about re-nominating the same article again for FAR. This is a completely different article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, my bad then. TBrandley 20:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the rule is that if a nomination is archived, the nominator has to wait two weeks before nominating any article. Yours was promoted, though, so it's okay. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • "Skinner takes Mulder's defense, while Scully, Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), Doggett, Marita Covarrubias (Laurie Holden), Gibson Praise (Jeff Gulka) and Jeffrey Spender (Chris Owens) testify on Mulder's behalf." -> I'd reorder the start of this to go "Scully, Dogget, Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), ..." so as to keep all of the newly-introduced names together. It seems a little clumsy to go introduced, new, introduced, new, new, etc.
  • "Actor Bruce Harwood, who played Jonathan Fitzgerald Byers on the show" -> I'd say we can just go with Jonathan Byers; if I'm not mistaken we don't actually learn his middle name in The X-Files but in The Lone Gunmen instead.
  • "The final scene of the episode was originally going to feature the Toothpick Man informing U.S. President George W. Bush, played by actor Gary Newton, of Mulder's escape." -> Given that the Toothpick Man is not mentioned in the plot, a brief aside to explain who he is and that he's played by Alan Dale might be a good idea.
  • "mainly the ones dealing with Scully's Catholicism" -> "mainly those", I believe would sound better.
  • "wherein the various finales were discussed by industry experts and television critics." -> I'd change "wherein" to "in which", and "various finales" to "various episodes" as the programme uses "finales" only a few words earlier.
  • Aside from that it's looking good to me, most of my concerns were already addressed in the aborted ACR. GRAPPLE X 00:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How's it look now? Also, sorry about the ACR. :P--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that was bloody quick. Support now my concerns have been addressed. GRAPPLE X 00:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
Quick concern about the article; according to the article List of awards and nominations received by The X-Files, the episode received an Emmy nomination for Dramatic Underscore, which isn't mentioned in the article. The nomination is mentioned here, and here but isn't verified directly by a reliable source such as the Emmy's website here. Can this be cleared up? Bruce Campbell (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always found that the reliable sources tend to credits these awards to the series, and it's only things like IMDB that give specific episodes. On a rare occasion I've seen book sources divulge a particular episode but this particular one doesn't have an accompanying source like the earlier official guide books. I think it might have been Ruby2010 and TonyTheTiger who I had a previous discussion with about this but I can't quite recall where or why. GRAPPLE X 20:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Support; Since an actual reason has been cited. Bruce Campbell (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review from Crisco 1492

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

  • Support on prose and images. Reads fine, images are all good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Recently seen this to finish the series, and the article is another great job by Gen. Quon. igordebraga ≠ 18:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to spot-check sources, some of the in-print ones can be verified via Amazon previews, like the Kessenich one, the Bush one, and the Fraga one. If you guys need anything else, I can send scans.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Article: Several of the episode's scenes feature elements that reference earlier installments. The final scene in which Mulder and Scully speak in a hotel room is reminiscent of the series' pilot episode.[9]
  • Source: When reflecting on a similar episode in a hotel room in the "pilot"...
  • Article: Duchovny appeared in the first two via archival footage and only made a small cameo in the third.[18]
  • Source: Although glimpsed briefly in a reflection in Scully's eye, Duchovny's central role was with this episode was behind the camera
I can't see a reference to archival footage on this page.
  • Article: She notes that, in both cases, "man's curiosity is his downfall".[36]
  • Source: Like Pandora, man's curiosity is his downfall
  • Article: The majority of the episode—like the rest of seasons six, seven, eight and nine—was filmed in Los Angeles, California.[30]
  • Source: passim
  • Article: The article noted, that while the episode claimed to wrap up the story-arcs for the series, "the trial of Mulder ultimately resulted in very little satisfying payoff to the series overarching mysteries".[42]
  • Source: And while most everyone (including the Smoking Man) returned, the trial of Mulder ultimately resulted in very little satisfying payoff to the series overarching mysteries, and a second feature film certainly didn't' help matters.
No issues, except we need a page number to reference the usage of archival footage. Graham Colm (talk) 08:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the spot-checks. I added the references like you asked!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 22:32, 6 October 2012 [44].

Holkham National Nature Reserve[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

England's largest National Nature Reserve has an Iron Age fort, several earls and a few naturists. Please wander in (but not on the dunes). Delegate permission given by Graham Colm Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN22: formatting
  • FN23: should use dash not hyphen. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely fixed 23, might have fixed 22, but not actually sure what the problem was, thanks for checking Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • fix "are stated in the SSSI notification document states"
  • not sure if part of the quote from SSSI about the salt marsh being "among the best in Europe" is appropriate; what makes one salt marsh "better" than another?
  • The quote makes it clear that it's because of its floral diversity, which is a measurable quantity. I think it's reasonable, indeed expected, that a designating body should make comparisons, even on a European level, to explain why these marshes are worthy of protection Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer if the second paragraph of the lead didn't start "This stretch of coast", as it's not immediately obvious what "This" refers to (the coast has only been mentioned explicitly so far at the beginning of the previous paragraph)
  • "The resulting lower water table reduced the wildlife value," reduced the value of the wildlife there, or reduced its value to wildlife?
  • "was subsumed into the newly created 7,700 hectares (19,000 acres) North Norfolk Coast SSSI." this unit is used adjectivally and so needs a hyphen (also hectares->hectare); same with the later "The narrow 5 km (3 mi) belt"
  • "holding 7 per cent" -> seven, per MoS
  • title in the cited texts are a mix of sentence and title case
  • have you seen these articles?
Title: Managing coastal grazing marshes for breeding waders and overwintering geese: Is there a conflict?
Author(s): Vickery, JA; Sutherland, WJ; OBrien, M; et al.
Source: BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION Volume: 79 Issue: 1 Pages: 23-34 DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3207(96)00111-5 Published: JAN 1997
Title: Holkham grazing marshes N.N.R.
Author(s): Harold, Ron
Source: Norfolk & Norwich Naturalists Society Transactions Volume: 30 Issue: 2 Supplement: Norfolk Bird & Mammal Report 1993 Pages: 123-130 Published: Sept 1994
Title: Factors affecting the establishment and distribution of Corsican Pine natural regeneration at Holkham National Nature :Reserve.
Author(s): Johnson, C. L.
Source: Quarterly Journal of Forestry Volume: 70 Issue: 2 Pages: 95-102 Published: 1976
  • There's a surprising amount about the pines at Holkham. My own feeling is that this and other articles on their regeneration are a bit peripheral Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Title: HOLKHAM NATIONAL NATURE RESERVE NORFOLK ENGLAND DESCRIPTION
Author(s): THE REGIONAL OFFICER EAST ANGLIA
Source: Entomologist Volume: 101 Issue: 1256 Pages: 23-24 Published: 1968
Title: Studies on the impact of paths on the dune vegetation at Winterton, Norfolk, England
Author(s): Boorman, L.A., Fuller, R.M.
Source: Biological Conservation Volume: 12 Issue: 3 Pages: 203-216 Published: 1977
  • I'm not sure that this adds a great deal to the general "keep off the dunes" message, especially as Winterton is a less managed location than the Holkham site. Much easy to scramble over the generally steeper dunes there (OR). What do you think? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Holocene relative sea-level movements along the North Norfolk Coast, UK
Author(s): I. Boomer, B.P. Horton
Source: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Volume: 230 Issue: 1–2 Published: 2006 Pages: 32-51
  • There's masses of geomorphology for this fragile coast, could write an FA on that alone. I prefer the article as is because it's much more focussed on the local picture Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Wind action and sand movement near Holkham Bay, North Norfolk Coast, England
Author(s): Oronsaye, W. I.
Source: Environmental Geology and Water Sciences Volume: 15 Issue: 2 Pages: 77-82 Published: 1990
Title: Assessing the impact of climate change on visitor behaviour and habitat use at the coast: A UK case study
Author(s): Coombes, Emma G.; Jones, Andy P.
Source: Global Environmental Change, Volume: 20 Issue: 2 Pages: 303-313, Published: 2010

Most importantly, the following article says that the rare (in Britain; it's a UK "priority species") earthstar fungus Geastrum minimum has been found there and concludes "The survival of this species in Britain would undoubtedly benefit from the construction of a boardwalk across this fragile and frequently-visited habitat."

Title: Recent discoveries among the gasteroid fungi of Norfolk Original Research Article
Author(s): Telfer, Mark G.; Lambdon, Philip W.; Gurney, Mark
Source: Field Mycology, Volume: 1 Issue: 1 Published: 2000 Pages: 30-32
  • Thanks very much for the review and additional sources. I'll tweak as indicated above, and let you know when I'm done here or on your talk page. If you think I've dismissed the pines and geomorphology too lightly, and the article needs more on these for balance, let me know. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for the additions. I'm satisfied that the article meets the FA criteria. (Feel free to remove these resolved comments to the talk page) Sasata (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image Check - only 1 minor issue, others are OK (Geograph project images).

Comments on images by Cwmhiraeth:

  • It would be nice to see some of the images on the left hand side of the page so as to break up the text a bit.
  • You could provide alternate text for the images.
OK, done both Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I made a couple of copyedits. Ii is a well written article and I am satisfied that it meets the FA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for edits and support, I would have responded sooner, but been away for a couple of days Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Maky:

  • "As the ice retreated during the Mesolithic (10,000–5,000 BCE), the sea level rose, filling what is now the North Sea. This brought the Norfolk coastline much closer to its present line, so that many ancient sites are now under the sea." – Would it be worth mentioning that this submerged area is referred to as Doggerland? It might make for easier access if people want to know more.
Thanks. The only reason I knew the term is because I followed the North Sea link and tried to learn more about its past geology. I figured it would be best to simplify that process for others with similar interests. – Maky « talk » 07:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...which is carries inland when the wind is from directions between northwest to northeast with a speed greater than three metres (10 ft) per second." – Besides the typo ("which is carries"), this seems a little awkward. Maybe say "...which is carried inland when the wind exceeds... directed from..."?
  • Added in response to earlier review, obviously in too much of a hurry, tweaked now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...of intertidal sand and mud flats belonging to the Crown." – Is there a reason why you say "Crown" and not "Crown Estate"?
  • It might be nice to summarize the number of species found in the reserve.
  • It would, but easier said than done; even for birds I haven't found an RS source. I'll keep looking, but difficult to get data with an FA standard ref Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely understand. I've written about two reserves myself. It was worth asking. – Maky « talk » 07:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it's just me, but I prefer to see more informative captions for images. Most people can see what's depicted in a picture (and if not, that's what the alt is for). Instead, I prefer to read a brief, interesting fact pertaining to the article (cited in the text). For example: "Vegetated dunes protect the NNR" -> "The reserve is protected from flooding by vegetated dunes along the coast." ...or: "Horses on the beach" -> "The reserve has many visitors every year, including horse riders who frequent the beach." Those are just an examples, and you're welcome to make up your own. I look at it this way: most people who visit the article will only read the lead and look at the pictures. Therefore we should make the pictures and their captions as informative as possible. Hell, let's give them a reason to want to read the entire article that we've worked so hard on. Pictures with a good caption can really pull people in.
  • I was looking at your references, and I noticed several are web-based. I strongly urge you to use WebCite or something equivalent to archive your sources. It would be a tragedy a few years from now if the sources were gone and the article demoted as a result.
  • That's brilliant! I've webcited key documents now, not bothered with pages which are courtesy views of real documents (like British birds ref) or ones where I'm certain I can replace the refs (almost all the Natural England and Holkham Estate links) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for archiving. Since you're using the cite templates, you can incorporate the archival url into the citation with the parameters archiveurl=url, archivedate=date, and deadurl=no. – Maky « talk » 16:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, all fixed now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it no longer a requirement (policy or guideline) to alternate image positions on the page from left to right? Sorry... it's late, and I'm being too lazy to look it up. I can look tomorrow, if needed.
  • No, that's gone - I've had several FAs through now with my preferred all-right-aligned Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A very good article. I'm going to AGF on its comprehensiveness, but it looks like it covers anything that I could think of. I'm looking forward to adding my support. – Maky « talk » 02:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for review and helpful comments, I'll keep looking for species counts, but it's surprisingly difficult to source adequately Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Maky – The article meets FA requirements IMO. Again, AGF on comprehensiveness, but seems to cover everything. – Maky « talk » 18:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support and the useful archiving tip Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chaosdruid

Just a few minor issues that I have noticed so far:

  • SSSI - I cannot see where SSSI is given in full. I would expect "Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)"
Lead
  • "The reserve is part of the North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest, which is additionally protected ..." maybe change which to and? Is the site additionally protected or is it just the NNCSSSI that is protected as a whole?
  • "Holkham is important" - is this Holkham the town, the estate, or Holkham NNR?
  • "but drainage and reclamation" - but, this should counteract something though there seems to be nothing to counteract in the previous sentence-part; are the creeks still there or have they gone?
  • " but access to the former harbour was stopped by drainage and reclamation of the marshes between the coast and the shingle ridge which started in the 17th century, and was completed in 1859." Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "drainage and reclamation of the marshes [...] was completed in 1859." seems a little misleading as the picture clearly states "Tidal foreshore and salt marsh" which suggests that the marshes still exist.
  • Yes, the marshes outside the shingle ridge are still there, I think my previous respose fixes that too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "local economy. but" I think that might be an orphaned full stop.
  • "potential damage to sensitive habitats caused by large numbers of people" how do large numbers of people cause potential damage? Also damage can be caused by small groups or individuals. Perhaps change to "... habitats that could be caused by visitors"
  • Recast as "The NNR has taken steps to control entry to the fragile dunes and other areas important for their animals or plants because of the damage to sensitive habitats that could be caused by unrestricted access" to avoid repetition of "visitors" or "access" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will add to this later. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for review and comments


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 08:02, 6 October 2012 [45].

Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre[edit]

Nominator(s): • Astynax talk and Lecen (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre was one of the greatest military officers in Brazil's history. He was a key figure in the Brazilian victory in the War of the Ragamuffins, Platine War and Paraguayan War. He was also a politician, member of the Liberal Party, and fought for the abolition of slavery. Working on this article was no easy task. There are no biographies in English of the Count of Porto Alegre and few in Portuguese. His life's deeds are scattered in several different sources. As usual in mine and Astynax's articles, none of the sections are greater than fours paragraphs (we don't want to test the patience of the casual reader). The structure is very similar as in Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, Porto Alegre's contemporary. In fact, anyone who read that article will feel at home here. Lecen (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Malleus Fatuorum

Lead

  • "He also became a sponsor of letters and sciences ...". What's a "sponsor of letters"?
  • "One of the main Brazilian commanders during the conflict, his participation was marked by both important battlefield victories, as well as constant quarrels with his Argentine and Uruguayan allies." Very awkward with that "both" stuck in there.
  • "... Porto Alegre turned his eyes to politics". Something like "turned his attention to politics" would be more idiomatic.
  • "His memory was highly esteemed until the downfall of the monarchy in 1889." Was it really his memory that was highly esteemed (as opposed to his eyesight or hearing, for instance), or he himself?
  • "... Porto Alegre's memory was cast aside." Rather too flowery. Could we not just say instead that he was forgotten, or that he slipped into obscurity?
  • "His reputation was eventually rehabilitated to some degree by historians, some of whom consider him to be among Brazil's greatest military figures." That "some ... some" is a little jarring.

More to follow when I've read the rest of the article. Malleus Fatuorum 13:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Malleus. I haven't seen this one till just now. Agreed on all points ... whatever you're willing to comment on would be appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 13:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of the Eastern Bank

  • "He launched another invasion by Portuguese-Brazilian troops a few years later, in 1816, which counted among their ranks Marques de Sousa's father and paternal grandfather." That doesn't work at all: "which" doesn't match "troops" and "their" doesn't match "invasion".
  • "The elder Marques de Sousa brought him along ...". Using "brought" implies that you're writing from whatever location you're describing. Brought him along to what anyway?
  • "Months later, on 20 January 1818, Marques de Sousa was enlisted into the army as a cadet". Shouldn't that be the active "enlisted" rather than the passive "was enlisted"? Did someone enlist him, or did he enlist?
    • Since he was a minor, it was probably his grandfather or his father who enlisted him. That's not made clear in any of the sources. --Lecen (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Platine War

  • "Tragedy struck on 11 June 1851 when his wife died in childbirth ...". A tragedy for him almost certainly, but I don't think that kind of emotional language is appropriate for an encyclopedia article.

Death

  • "In one of its sessions, the count, who had already embarked on a plan of gradually freeing his own slaves ...". wasn't he a viscount by then?
    • You might have missed the last sentence of the last paragraph of "Offensive in Paraguayan territory" section: "...Porto Alegre was relieved of command on 27 January 1868. He returned to Rio Grande do Sul and was raised from viscount to count a few months later". He was raised to count on April 1868 (the exact date can be seen "Titles of nobility" section). The Literary Parthenon, where he asked for the gradual end of slavery was only created on June 1869. By then, he had been count for more than a year. --Lecen (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough. Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As always when a party returned to power, new elections were held, though marked by fraud." This is a little ambiguous to me. Does the "as always" refer to the fact that elections were always held in those circumstances, that those elections were always marked by fraud, or both?
    • Both. When the Emperor named a Liberal cabinet, after the resignation or dismissal of a Conservative cabinet (and vice versa), the party now in power would ask for the dissolution of the Chamber of Deputies. New elections were carried, frauds ensued, and the party would gain a sizable majority in the Chamber. To achieve that majority, the cabinet would fire all office holders affiliated to the other political party and name people from their own party. Once in charge of those offices (for example, police chief), the officeholders would do everything within their power to influence elections. A police chief would send policemen to prevent voters from the other political party from voting, the president (governor) of the province (an appointed office, not elective), would appoint men connected to local political bosses to appease them, they would send men to vote again over and over, etc, etc... Did you see the 2002 movie Gangs of New York? Just like that. --Lecen (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I did, and I take your point. Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Around the same time, the count focused on two other projects: the first grew out of his longstanding interest in cultivating letters and sciences ...". The same issue I raised about what "letters" means in this context above.
  • "... and the second, larger and more ambitious aim was to fight for the gradual abolition of slavery." How can aims be larger or smaller? Why not just say "more ambitious aim"?

Legacy

  • "Almost ten years after the count's death, a marble statue representing him was inaugurated on 2 February 1885". I'm not sure you "inaugurate" statues; "unveil", "commission", "erect"?

I've read through the whole article now and I'm very impressed at what Lecen and Astynax have managed to do despite the paucity of English sources. Obviously I can't read Portuguese, so I'm taking all the facts on trust, but in lieu of any bombshells discovered by other reviewers I'm very much leaning towards support. Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although there are no biographies of Porto Alegre in English, bits of his life are also scattered among English speaking sources. A study in English of the Progressive Liberal Party, of the Liberation Society and of the Literary Parthenon can be seen here. The Paraguayan War can be seen here, here and here. The War of the Ragamuffins and Porto Alegre's role can be seen in here. Although I used mostly books in Portuguese (because they are more detailed), anyone can check the veracity of the article on those books in English. --Lecen (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in no way doubting the veracity of the article Lecen, I'm quite convinced by it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say that. Since you mentioned the lack of sources in English, I thought it would be useful to leave a note for everyone (since most don't speak Portuguese) that they can find most of the needed information in English. --Lecen (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Conde_de_porto_alegre_01.jpg needs page number and US PD tag. Same with File:Signature_of_the_Count_of_Porto_Alegre.jpg, File:Paço_da_cidade_1818.jpg, File:Battle_of_Caseros_by_Boulanger.jpg, File:Baron_of_Porto_Alegre_1861.jpg, File:Count_of_Porto_Alegre_by_Fleiuss.jpg, File:Conde_de_porto_alegre_00.jpg, File:Count_of_porto_alegre_c.1875.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added the PD-US tags. Since I was never asked before to add the actual pages from where pictures were scanned (the book details were enough) I believe that this occurs because there has been a discussion about such requirements. Could you show me? --Lecen (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One comment, for anyone: "He fought in the village of Pando during the Battle of Pando on 30 March ...": I get that if we don't include Pando, then there's nothing to click, since the battle is currently a red-link. Still, "Pando ... Pando" is generally considered repetitive by FAC standards. Anyone have a solution? - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Write a stub on the Battle of Pando, even if for now it only says that it was fought in the village of Pando. Malleus Fatuorum 18:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense. Lecen, I edited the text on this one, can you create the stub? - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want you guys to believe that I'm lazy, but I wonder with it wouldn't be better to simply remove the redlinks. I mean, what are the chances that any of these articles about these almost never heard battles (and some people too like "Sebastião Barreto Pereira Pinto") will be expanded? I've been here for some years and I still haven't see anyone else improving these Brazilian history-related articles beyond me. I think it's worthless to create articles that no one will bother to improve. But, if you believe that it´s better to create the stubs instead of removing the brackets, then I'll gladly do it. P.S.: Take for example the Second Portuguese-Brazilian invasion of the Eastern Bank. All articles about battles that occurred in this conflict were recently merged with the article about the war because they were stubs for years and there was no perspective of anyone eventually improving them. --Lecen (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It must be very frustrating to get so little support. If it's a notable battle in either English or Portuguese sources, leave the red-link, I'll create a stub later. - Dank (push to talk) 20:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Lecen that these minor engagements will likely get little interest, but I created the stubs in the event that someone ever decides to work on the Eastern Bank article. • Astynax talk 21:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 6th company of 4th regiment of light cavalry": I don't know the name of this unit but there's a chance this isn't quite right ... possibly, "a light cavalry unit, the 6th company of 4th regiment". - Dank (push to talk) 19:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The 6th company was a unit within the 4th regiment of light cavalry. --Lecen (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, then what you have is right, or close enough; I may tweak it. - Dank (push to talk) 20:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The title should be Manuel Marques de Sousa. No one is calling him by the current title. Kauffner (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unsure of your point. While he had no title in his early career, the current title is certainly used. In other instances he is sometimes simply referred to by his title alone, i.e., as the "Count of Porto Alegre"/"Conde de Porto Alegre" or simply "Porto Alegre". See Whigham's The Paraguayan War: Causes and Early Conduct page 348 or Burton's Letters from the Battlefields of Paraguay pages 203, 296 for examples in English, and there are many Portuguese equivalents (e.g., "General conde de Porto Alegre" and including place names, military units and other things dedicated in his honor that use only the title or the full name with title). • Astynax talk 05:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant that there are no examples of "Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre" -llc on GBooks. There are 15 post-1970 results for Manuel Marques de Sousa" -llc., although only one of these is both relevant and in English. Kauffner (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As there is no Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, or José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco, or Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná. We are following Wikipedia's policy: the name of the person followed by the title. I warned at the very beginning that there is no biography in English of the Count of Porto Alegre. And that small pieces of information about his life appear here and there. Thus, if you're reading a book about the Ragamuffin rebellion or the Platine War, you'll probably find only "Manoel Marques de Souza" (as his name was spelled in the 19th century). If the book is about the Paraguayan War, he'll be mentioned as "Baron of Porto Alegre". Do you have any other comment about something else? --Lecen (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Shouldn't Gloved Centaur be fully capitalized as a nickname? Like Wayne Gretzky, the "Great One"? What does that mean or refer to?
  • Shouldn't the various political parties in the lede be linked to? And the position of Minister of War?
  • I don't think that I've ever seen the term Hispanic American used before; I've always seen Spanish American and would suggest that that's more familiar to readers.
  • 1st Regiment of Light Cavalry should be capitalized as a proper noun as should major general in the same paragraph (you're referring to a particular major general). Same with Brigadier Sebastiao Barreto Pereria Pinto, etc.
    • These still need to be dealt with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of these still need to be capitalized. Anytime a military unit has a name or number it should be capitalized. So search for regiment, brigade and division to find those proper nouns.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The various ranks should be linked to their modern equivalent.
  • Link to Brazilian National Guard or their nearest modern equivalent.
  • Things are a little confusing in the Party Leader section about his rank. So his promotion of field marshal was only a brevet? And his promotion to lieutenant general a permanent rank?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Thanks for taking a look at the article. "Gloved Centaur" is now capitalized. The term "Hispanic American" is used to distinguish from "Luso-American" ("Spanish American" is more often used to describe U.S. citizens of Spanish or Latin American descent). I do not believe there is a modern equivalent to the Empire's National Guard (correct me if I'm wrong). Lecen is more familiar with the issues of military ranks in the Empire. • Astynax talk 21:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see that the capitalization issue with Gloved Centaur has been fixed, but please add a note explaining the term to the article.
I realize that there's a dearth of editors working on Brazilian article, but I think that red links should be added for the organizations and ranks that I listed earlier to encourage other editors to create articles for them. I don't ask that anyone involved in this article do anything other than add the links.
I've read a fair amount of Latin American history, mostly dealing the early colonial period, and haven't seen Hispanic American before, but I'll accept y'all's assurance that that is a common scholarly term.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for having misunderstood what you meant. I thought you wanted us to create that missing articles, and not merely add red links. I did that and also capitalized those names as you suggested. There is one small issue: none of the authors explain exactly why he was known as the "gloved centaur". It's implied that the reason was because he was well mannered cavalry officer. If I add that explanation wouldn't it be considered original research? --Lecen (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, so just add a note that none of your sources actually explain exactly what was meant by the nickname.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found a good source. The note explaining the nickname has been added. --Lecen (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Ok, I've made it about halfway through, only small comments thus far. Good job to all the people who have written or reviewed the article.
  • "Porto Alegre later entered the lower house of the Brazilian parliament" Is there a good link for this?
  • He also became a patron in the fields of literature and science, and an active advocate for the abolition of slavery." Is this comma unnecessary?
    • Since the two ands are so close together, it's not a big deal, but I think I prefer the comma as a clue not to read it as "X and Y and Z". - Dank (push to talk) 18:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tweaked the sentence to both get rid of the comma and avoid leaving the "X+Y+Z" impression. • Astynax talk 07:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their private defense forces consisted primarily of laborers who were drafted as soldiers." Is it worth linking to Private defense agency here?
  • "Rio Grande do Sul was often the target of invasions from its neighboring Hispanic-American colony." What was the name of the colony?
  • "he was well connected in the imperial capital (his uncle, married to a paternal aunt, was Minister of War),[19] cultured, and well educated.[20] Marques de Sousa was a handsome man[20] of average height[21] with dark,[22] curly hair[21] and brown eyes.[21]" Minor issue, but you might think about moving some cites to the end of the sentences.
  • "Despite the nickname, the Ragamuffin rebels were landlords, like Marques de Sousa, who after losing elections tried to take power by force." Maybe some more explanation of the name, like": "The rebels, who were named after the fringed leather they wore, were landlords, like Marques de Sousa, who after losing elections tried to take power by force." Just a suggestion.
    • Were they? I thought they were named for ragamuffins. It used to be a common word, but not so much now; one option is a link to the definition. - Dank (push to talk) 18:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Thanks for reading through the article. I have taken advantage of a few of your suggestions. Regarding the name of the colony, it was both the Viceroyalty of Peru and the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata (in succession) during the period. As to the placement of the cites for individual statements within the sentence, it makes it more difficult to find the corresponding cite for a particular statement if they are all bunched at the end of the sentence (e.g., for any 1 reference a reader was attempting to source, they would have to go through 3 books when only 1 was necessary). I will wait for Lecen to comment on the links to whether the link would enhance the description of the private armies and on the Ragamuffin nickname (I like Dank's suggestion to link to a Wiki definition if one is available). • Astynax talk 18:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you here, Mark.
1) I was reading the article about "Private defense agency" and it has no relation at all with what is said here, in Count of Porto Alegre's article. The life of the people of Rio Grande do Sul is far more alike the Americans in the Old West. An American farmer would often team up with other farmers to protect themselves from Indian attacks or from Mexican bandits' incursions. There was probably a wealthier and influential farmer to whom they either had a greater respect or were subordinated to by family or business connections (or other reasons) who would lead them.
2) I clarified which Hispanic-American colony the article was talking about.
3) "Ragamuffin" is the translation of "Farrapo" found in the English sources used in this article. It is not exactly known why they were called "Farrapos". The name was already used in Brazilian politics before 1835 (when the Ragamuffins rebelled) to name radicals (who were also known as "exaltados", or "firebrands"). This is the kind of thing that should be better explained in its proper article (War of the Ragamuffins), not here. Or else, I would have to explain why his party was called "Progressive-Liberal" or why the Party of Order later became the "Conservative Party". This problem about names is just one example of how many articles about Brazilian history haven't been expanded and improved so far.
4) Unfortunately I can't place the cites at the end of the sentence because they do not all say the same thing. One source mentioned his eyes and curly hair (it was a historian who met the Count when he was old and grey-haired) and the other mentioned that he was dark-haired. If I place them all at the end of the sentence someone with those books might say: "Hey, there is no such thing on book X! Original research! Blah, blah, etc..." The grammar part I'll leave to Astynax. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, here are my last few comments, will reply to the above replies soon:
  • "The Sociedade Libertadora (Liberation Society) was founded on 29 August, with Porto Alegre as its president, with the primary purpose of purchasing freedom for enslaved children." A couple occurrences of "with" in pretty close proximity here.
  • I spotted a few refs out of numerical order, I think it's just toward the end, i.e. "Baron of Porto Alegre (Grandee) on 3 March 1852.[123][60]"
  • "and contemporaries made note of his trimmed and clean nails." Might want to link "nails" here.
  • Is "which" dangling here? "After Porto Alegre's death a marble tablet with the inscription "Here was born the worthy Count of Porto Alegre" was put at the entrance of the house where he was born, which was removed in 1893 by the owner and left to deteriorate."
  • "The work of historians has restored Porto Alegre's reputation to a certain extent." Might want to note a general time period if you can.
  • "It is worth noting that his request occurred just a few days after Caxias' arrival." I think "It is worth noting" is a phrase to avoid. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed "worth noting" and added a wikilink for nails. I'll leave the others to Astynax, who is far more able than I in grammar and technical stuff. I'd like to point out that I won't be able to tell exactly when the Count of Porto Alegre's reputation was rehabilitated. Certainly that it had already occurred by the 1940s, but not before the 1910s. But this would be no more than "original research" from my part. --Lecen (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The other items on the list have been addressed. Thanks Mark. • Astynax talk 17:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Another home run guys, good work--very readable, not a lot I could say for an article of this length. Time for the star! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 08:02, 6 October 2012 [46].

H-58 (Michigan county highway)[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 02:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this county road literally took an Act of Congress to get paved through Alger County. Now that the paving is done it's becoming a tourist attraction in its own right, even though it's the main road access to the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. I've enjoyed working on it, and I hope you'll enjoy reading it. Imzadi 1979 → 02:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - OK. Images from Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (PD-MUTCD}, National Park Service (PD-USGov-NPS) and "Own Work" (self|cc-by-sa-3.0). Source info provided. GermanJoe (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I live in Australia, have no idea of the geography of this region, and have never heard of this road before today. So I think I qualify as a fresh pair of eyes ;) While the article looks pretty comprehensive, its prose would benefit from some polishing, and a few sections could be fleshed out more. My comments are:

  • "between Munising and Deer Park" - should this be 'the towns of Munising and Deer Park'? (readers unfamiliar with this region don't know whether these are towns or some other geographic feature; especially as 'Deer Park' could be a nature reserve of some kind)
    • Tweaked with different wording to the same effect. Imzadi 1979 → 20:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At Grand Marais, H-58 exits the national park and runs through town. " - should this be 'runs through the town'?
    • In American English, we tend to eschew the definite article a bit more, and in this case, there's a minor distinction at work that means it shouldn't be used. "Through the town" would tend to imply more of a location legally defined as a town, which isn't a classification in Michigan. "Through town" would imply just an urbanized location, whether or not there is a legal jurisdiction or not. Leaving it as is doesn't carry that implication that there is a municipality named "Grand Marais", which is not an incorporated community (city or village) at all. Also, one could exit a city but still be "in town" because adjacent areas of a township (a legal entity) are still built up. Imzadi 1979 → 20:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That sounds a bit more legalistic than I suspect most people would think about, but OK Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Paving projects were completed between 2006 and 2010 so that the entire length of H-58 in Alger County is now paved; the section in Luce County is still a gravel road." - I think that this should be tweaked, as the lead has already specified that the final section of the road is gravel
    • The sentence already specifies that "the entire length of H-58 in Alger County is now paved". I'm not sure what you want to see changed. Imzadi 1979 → 20:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first paragraph of the lead ends with "The segment running east of Grand Marais to Deer Park in Luce County is a gravel road that connects to H-37 in Muskallonge Lake State Park." (which is a detailed summary of this part of the road). This is then repeated by the last sentence of the lead ("the section in Luce County is still a gravel road.") Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you'd just like to see the second part of the sentence removed? Imzadi 1979 → 00:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The roadway runs outside of, and parallel to, the southern boundary of the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. " - does this mean it runs next to the lake, or next to the edge of public land? (the latter, I think)
    • The latter; the northern boundary of the park is the lake. Imzadi 1979 → 20:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you please specify that in the article? Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added something to the lead that should deal with another comment as well. Imzadi 1979 → 00:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The highway turns due east and runs through an intersection with H-13 (Connors Road). Leaving town," - I thought that the road had already left town?
    • It didn't, it crossed through the eastern end of the city, but it doesn't actually exit the city until the intersection with H-13. Imzadi 1979 → 20:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see that you've tweaked "through the end of town by the Neenah Paper Mill" to avoid this confusion Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and enters the national park" - which national park? (none is specified, though I guess you're referring to the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore)
    • While it is officially named the "Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore", it is a national park. National lakeshores are just a type of national park. I've used that term for the generic to avoid too much repetition of wording. Imzadi 1979 → 20:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that it's confusing to be honest, and there isn't too much repetition of the term. Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Same addition to the lead referenced above should fix this, but we're straying into over definition of what should be commonly understood terminology. Imzadi 1979 → 00:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "H-58 meets H-15 in Van Meer, home of the Bear Trap Inn and Bar" - what's the relevance of the inn and bar? (and if this town is its 'home', does it mean that it moves around? ;) )
    • The bar is a local landmark, used by area residents as a point of reference for directions. In American English, a location can be a "home" to a fixed item. Road signs proclaim "Welcome to Marquette, Home of Northern Michigan University", for example. Imzadi 1979 → 20:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Roadsigns and sports announcers aren't the best sources of style advice ... although they will, eventually, win, and then "home" will be a meaningless word. For the time being, it's still a metaphor for a place where a person or persons are welcome and feel comfortable, so when you say that a city is home to a school, or a stadium is home to a team, you're metaphorically saying that the school or team chose to be there. I personally didn't think the three uses of "home" in this article were appropriate to the metaphor, so I changed them ... feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 23:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If Merriam-Webster says it's fine in American English then, well, it's fine. Imzadi 1979 → 00:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • And it doesn't. The closest of the definitions is: "a : a place of origin <salmon returning to their home to spawn>; also : one's own country <having troubles at home and abroad> b : headquarters 2 <home of the dance company>". None of those support the word as it was used in the article. - Dank (push to talk) 00:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Grand Marais is the headquarters to that local lumber industry. I'll change the bar one, but I won't on the lumber one. Imzadi 1979 → 01:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • The wording in the article is "This town is the location of a small harbor that was once the home of a lumber shipping port", so the usage doesn't seem correct (as you're saying that the town was the 'home' of a port, and not that its currently the home of the local timber industry). Nick-D (talk) 02:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The area on each end of the park averages around 140–144 inches (360–370 cm) of snowfall annually, while the National Park service says that this central section is higher." - the last part of this sentence is a bit awkward ('National Park service says' is unclear, and the central section presumably receives a greater quantity of snow, and is not geographically higher in altitude as this this suggests)
    • That's just what the source states. During the ACR, I was asked to add snowfall amounts, which I did, but since the NPS is a) the best/only source for this and b) isn't specific as to the central area of the park other than "higher", that's the best that's possible. Imzadi 1979 → 20:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This location gives motorists a chance to hike down to the lakeshore to see the Au Sable Point Lighthouse peeking above the trees to the east and the Grand Sable Dunes to the west" - are cyclists or people walking along the road barred from doing so? ;)
    • No, they are not. Cyclists and pedestrians in the US are typically only prohibited from expressways or freeways; other roadways allow them unless special restrictions are enacted, which in this case, there are none other than the annual winter road closure. Imzadi 1979 → 20:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was being a bit of a smart-arse with this comment: my concern is the use of the specific term 'motorists', given that people travelling the road through other means can obviously also hike to the lakeshore Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please don't use sarcasm in a serious review, thanks? Imzadi 1979 → 00:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the intersection with William Hill and Newburg roads, H-58 makes a 90° curve northward for about three-quarters of a mile (1.2 km)." - I think I know what you're trying to say here, but the wording is awkward; a 90 degree curve is extremely sharp (its a L curve) the angle must be much less than that if it takes 1.2 km,
    • The curve isn't 3/4 of a mile long, the northward change in direction is. Tweaked. Imzadi 1979 → 20:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "once the home of a lumber shipping port" - as above ('home' is not a good term to apply to something which can't move)
    • As above, in American English, "home" can apply to fixed objects. "Home: 4a. a place of origin b. headquarters." Imzadi 1979 → 20:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, I think it sounds pretty odd. I'll ask Dank to comment, and go with whatever he says. Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Replied above, and reverted the removal of a valid phrase in American English. Imzadi 1979 → 00:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The park hosts 71,000 visitors a year on the shore of Muskallonge Lake" - sounds a bit odd, and the number is more specific than I suspect you mean (unless there's a cap on the number of visitors permitted) - how about something like "The park is located on the shore of Muskallonge Lake and is visited by about 71,000 people each year"?
    • Swapped out, but the number isn't more specific than intended; if I had quoted an exact figure like 71,123, that would be too specific. Imzadi 1979 → 20:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's the implication that 71,000 people visited the park each year which worried me. Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Road origins' section doesn't discuss why this road was first built, and subsequently upgraded. Can this be done? (eg, were the various projects done to link the townships, support logging, enable tourists to travel around, generate work in the Great Depression, etc)
    • No source specifically states such a reason, which is usually just to connect the locations along its path together. Absent a source specifying a reason, this cannot be added, sorry. Imzadi 1979 → 20:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK (though you might find this through local newspaper archives) Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have a photocopy of every newspaper article about this roadway from the vertical files of the local library, and no such article exists. Sorry. Imzadi 1979 → 00:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "marking the official opening to traffic" - passive voice
    • There's nothing wrong with the passive voice though, but I tweaked it. Imzadi 1979 → 20:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Motorcyclists now frequent the road, which has reduced travel times between Munising and Grand Marais from 90 to 45 minutes." - this sentence appears to combine two entirely different concepts the way it's written at present
  • "Not all residents have been happy with the new road; nails have been deliberately spread along the newly paved road. Thousands of them have been found along the road, which have led to flat tires on many vehicles" - what's the motivation for such a horrible (and dangerous) act? This wording could be polished a bit more (eg, "Thousands of nals have been scattered along the road, and have punctured the tires on many vehicles" might work better) Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No motive has been officially determined as no one has been caught to ask them why they were performing their acts of vandalism. Absent such an official determination, it's only speculation as to why. Imzadi 1979 → 20:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you include something on this in the article? Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • All I can say is that the police think it's intentionally done and that they don't have a motive for it. Imzadi 1979 → 00:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This article met the featured article standards quite well in my opinion when I reviewed it thoroughly at ACR. Looking over the article again, it still more than meets my expectations as well as passing the featured article criteria. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 08:02, 6 October 2012 [47].

Mereka Bilang, Saya Monyet![edit]

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is a good overview of a fairly minor, but somewhat impressive, Indonesian film. The plot and themes are not for the squeamish, and this was one of my more controversial DYKs way back when. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from TBrandley moved to talk

  • Support looks solid, as always. TBrandley 23:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I reviewed this one earlier today at Crisco's behest and his subsequent additions also look good to me. Would have offered an image review but when I sat down to do it I realised there was only one image to review; File:Mereka Bilang Saya Monyet.jpg; whose rationale is perfectly solid. GRAPPLE X 01:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I'll review this too. Here's some comments on the lead and first section. I made some copyedits, hopefully all are fine with you. I added the word "murder", hopefully that won't be controversial :)
  • "the first digital feature film produced in the country" Consider trying to make this more prominent in the lead.
  • Sources didn't emphasise it too much. Plot, year, and cast/crew come first for sure though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Adjeng (Titi Sjuman), a writer, lives alone in an apartment" I'd go with "paid for by..." to finish the sentence.
  • Done
  • "Adjeng (Titi Sjuman), a writer, lives alone in an apartment that her boyfriend, a rich businessman (Joko Anwar), pays for. A writer of children's stories," You don't need to state her occupation twice, maybe cut out the first one.
  • Done
  • "she recalls being forced to eat vegetables she had vomited as a child" I'm a little unclear here, was she forced to eat vegetables as a child or an adult?
  • How's this?
  • "Adjeng peeks and recalls how she had observed her mother having sex with her lover (Bucek Depp), a man who had previously molested her." I'm being picky, but I'm not sure that it's clear who the last "her" refers to. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are the rest of my comments, as usual, sorry for the glacial pace.
  • "She asked Indra Herlambang, a writer-cum-television personality,[6] to help her write the screenplay as she "never could write stories with a plot"[a][7] and she needed him to keep her motivated." Should there be a comma before "and she..."?
  • Sounds okay, as they aren't inherently related. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film was originally meant to be based on the titular short story "Mereka Bilang, Saya Monyet!" from Djenar Maesa Ayu's 2002 debut, a critically and commercially successful short story anthology of the same name.[2][3] However, this was later replaced by "Lintah"" I don't think it's quite clear what "this" refers to in the second sentence.
  • "In order to direct the film, in 2004 Ayu began taking filmmaking classes to prepare herself." How about "In 2004 Ayu began taking filmmaking classes to prepare herself to direct the film."?
  • "Mereka Bilang, Saya Monyet! deals with the aftereffects of child molestation, in a way that the Indonesian magazine Tempo describes as an "interesting time control experiment"" I'm not sure you need the comma here.
  • "which results in Adjeng's promiscuity – an act which is common in the Sastra Wangi literary movement of which Ayu is considered a part." How about taking out one "which": "which results in Adjeng's promiscuity – a common act in the Sastra Wangi literary movement of which Ayu is considered a part." Mark Arsten (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Another well written film article, not much I can point out. It manages to be neutral, yet provokes interest. As usual, no comment on sourcing though. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A nicely rounded article. Support on reviewing the prose. Some minor comments:

  • are worked into a short story with the title "Lintah"; my first reading of this is that "Lintah" was a short story within this film (i.e. a cut story). So it took me a second to wrap my head around the reference to it being published in the next paragraph. Maybe emphasise that Adjeng is writing Lintah.
  • Clarified (and shortened somewhat...
  • A writer of children's stories, she is mentored by Asmoro (Ray Sahetapy) [...] but wishes to write short stories for adults; something here doesn't quite scan (I removed part of the sentence to demonstrate the incongruity as it appears to me). These are two matters, so maybe needs two sentences?
  • Asmoro sees the businessman; maybe remind the reader that the businessman is her boyfriend.
  • and her mother's murder of the perpetrator; this threw me a little... is she recalling this for the first time? What about the molestation (which it is implied she recalls earlier)?
  • First time in the film, not known if its the first time she's thought of it. We're shown him getting into the bathtub with her before, but not the aftermath (i.e. the pool of water and leeches with blood flowing is only shown once)
  • cajoling; seems colloquial. Perhaps rephrase, and merge in the next (very short) sentence.
  • How's this? I reworked it a bit.
  • The film does not show Adjeng's molestation; might be worth mentioning this in the plot?
  • How's this? I reworked it a bit.

Otherwise all good! --Errant (chat!) 18:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yep, looks fine. Good luck with this nom :) --Errant (chat!) 09:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 08:02, 6 October 2012 [48].

Frank Berryman[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An Australian general of World War II. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "After the war, he spent nearly twenty years as a major.": On a quick read, I didn't see that in the text.
  • "Lieutenant General Sir Frank Horton Berryman ... rose to the rank of lieutenant general ...": repetition. Also, since he was a major later, was this a brevet rank?
    • He was not a major later. It does not say that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • My mistake here too ... but "Lieutenant General ... lieutenant general" in the same sentence is still a form of repetition that we're avoiding when possible. You could simply omit the first "Lieutenant General".
  • "in 1913. Graduating early due to the First World War, he served on the Western Front with the field artillery.": I think everyone is disallowing this use of "due to" at FAC now; most style guides say it can modify a noun, and not for instance "graduating". "in 1913, graduating early to serve with the field artillery on the Western Front of the First World War."
    • That would not be correct. His class graduated early due to the outbreak of the war. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, yes ... now it says that. If you're interested, we could have a long, word-geeky talk about "due to". I'll rewrite; check it out. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, that is not right. His class was graduated early, which allowed the senior class (and some of the instructors) to join the AIF. But they didn't have to! Some of the class said "no". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Major General General Staff": Not a lot we can do about militarese, but what do you think of "Major General, General Staff,"?
  • Otherwise fine in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 23:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mentioned in Despatches": Roughly speaking, there's no such thing as a "proper verb", outside of militarese and a few proper nouns used as verbs. I changed this to "received a Mention in Despatches", and if you want to go with that, then make the capitalization consistent throughout ... you write "mention in despatches" later on, and either capitalization is fine. - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "schmozzle": colloquial
  • "prepared appreciations of the situation": I don't know what that means.
    • It's a military term. This had not occurred to me until I checked with the dictionary. In my time stationed in your country I had never heard "appreciation" used in any other sense. eg. "Mission command that conveys intent and an appreciation of all aspects of the situation guides the adaptive use of Army forces." (FM 3-0) "Understanding the parts of a situation is necessary; however, alone it does not provide an appreciation of the relationships among the parts. That appreciation requires synthesis. Synthesis is thinking about how the parts of a situation work together as a whole rather than in isolation." (FM 5-0) This led me to TRADOC 525-5-500 "Commander’s Appreciation and Campaign Design" which provides a definition:

Appreciation is the act of estimating the qualities of things and giving them their proper value. It is essentially an understanding of the nature or meaning or quality or magnitude of the situation before you. For the purposes of military operations, an “appreciation” allows the commander to design, plan, execute, and—most importantly—adapt his actions within the operational environment, through learning about the nature and context of the problem as the campaign unfolds. (p. 20)

The manual then goes on to describe the procedure than an officer like Berryman would follow to produce an appreciation today. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "US Army LCMs and Australian Army DUKWs": Most readers won't have a clue what those are without clicking, so per WP:Checklist#clarity, some extra text of your choice is needed. "amphibious" and/or "landing craft" spring to mind.
    • Re-worded so you don't have to click. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the advance element": I think I agree with your calls, but search for "advance" to make sure you're as consistent as you want to be. Sometimes you say "advance" and sometimes "advanced" in this sense.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His attendance at the staff college from 1926 to 1928 marked him out": That sounds like he got a gold star for perfect attendance. If I understand your meaning, you might go with "As one of only X students attending ..., he was marked out ..." - Dank (push to talk) 17:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that is right. Simply being sent marked you out, rather than anything that you did there. You got to add "psc" as a post-nominal. Re-worded to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything looks great. Thanks for the explanations. I'm glad it annoys you when I get something wrong; I wish it annoyed everyone. - Dank (push to talk) 20:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images: several files need PD-1996, for which they qualify, in order to indicate their status in the United States. Otherwise fine. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Hill is missing location
  • Two different Australian locations for Cambridge UP, is this correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. I can only surmised that they moved office some time between 1992 and 2007. They are both suburbs of Melbourne. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments: just a few minor nitpicks:
    • inconsistent terminology: in the lead and infobox you have "First World War", but then elsewhere "Great War". Either is fine, IMO, but I think it would be best to be consistent;
      • "Great War " is always preferred, but consistency requires the less favoured and anachronistic "First World War". Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • inconsistent capitalisation: "militia" and "Militia"?
    • inconsistent capitalisation "Mention in Despatches" and "mention in despatches";
    • I wonder about the presentation of some of the names. For instance, "John Austin Chapman", "Edward James Milford", "Harold William Grimwade", "George Alan Vasey". I think it is more common to just display first and last names for Australians, so maybe these should just be piped?
    • the duplicate link checker tool reports a few examples of potentially overlinked items: George Alan Vasey, Brigadier, I Corps (Australia), Major General (Australia), New Guinea Force, Major General, Stanley Savige, General, Brisbane, 7th Division (Australia), 9th Division (Australia), 5th Division (Australia), Prime Minister of Australia, and Sydney Rowell;
    • slightly repetitious: "which were in front of the infantry's front lines". Perhaps, "which were forward of the infantry's front lines"?
    • I think that italics might be required here: "At the time of his funeral the Ambassador for Lebanon, Raymond Heneine, wrote in the Canberra Times" (italics for Canberra Times);
    • "Melway publishing" --> "Melway Publishing"?
    • is there an OCLC number for the Wigmore source?
    • are there page numbers for the chapter by Dyer? (I wish I'd seen this earlier, I had that book out from the library last week and could have added them in for you). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't have that book, so I've removed the solitary reference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am working through this article now. I have no knowledge of this subject matter. Comments as I go:

Lead
  • he entered Duntroon in 1913; unclear what Duntroon is to the uninitiated - consider using Royal Military College, Duntroon for full context
  • His class graduated early after the First World War broke out; I might just be nitpicking but.. this reads oddly to me. Did they graduate early because of the First World War or are you merely stating they graduated just after the outbreak of war (it's only a slight incongruity, I guess the former is right from later sections). Might be worth rephrasing.
    • You can see the discussion above; but it bow says because of the outbreak Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Berryman commanded Eastern Command; nit picking. Is there a good synonym for commanded to use here?
  • As a personal preference I usually look for a sentence about the particular thing that makes this individual notable or interesting in the very first paragraph. It's not a big deal, but I feel it helps the lead hook the reader.
    • He is notable because he was a general, per MOS:SOLDIER. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Education and early life
  • 1903 Railway Strike; no article? If not then more context may be needed (and "the" feels misplaced, implying the reader should know what was being talked about).
    • There is no article, but it is notable and one could be written. I did not red link it though, because I have no intention of doing so, and know of nobody else who intends to write it either. I think the reader gets the idea that it was a major strike, and the workers lost. It provides information about Frank's working class socio-economic background. It also ties in with his role in the more famous 1949 Australian coal strike. I did gather material to expand that one, but never got around to it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of 33 members; missing "the"? "of" is used many times in the last couple of sentences, and it sticks the prose up a bit. Consider a rephrase.
First World War
  • Berryman's Duntroon class had not yet completed its military training at the outbreak of the First World War; basically a restatement of the previous sentence. I'd suggest something like "Early graduation meant that Berryman's Duntroon class had not yet completed its military training"
    • Deleted "at the outbreak of the First World War". At Duntroon, most of the military training is conducted in the final year. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • First AIF; as the first instance of this acronym I recommend writing it in full.
  • the result of an AIF policy; redundancy, previous sentence should make it clear enough this is an AIF policy.
  • aimed at giving them a broad a range of experience, which would benefit the post-war Army, while not allowing the young officers of high rank to outnumber the posts available for them.; it took me a while to wrap my head around this. Perhaps rephrase: "a policy intended to benefit the post-war Army, by giving the young officers a broad range of experience without promoting too many to high ranks (who might outnumber the available posts in peacetime)."
    • This policy was aimed at giving them a broad a range of experience, which would benefit the Army, while not allowing them to outnumber the available post-war positions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Mention in Despatches does not look like a quotation due to the placement of the image messing with the indentation. In addition the image squeezes the article text between itself and the infobox (contrary to MOS:IMAGELOCATION). Suggest moving the image to the right, below the infobox, to solve this.
  • He returned to Australia in October 1919; is there a particular reason?
    • Because the war had ended. With the war over, he returned to Australia in October 1919. I am used to AIF files that list everyone's RTA date. Hawkeye7 (talk)

That's it for now. Be aware I am a reviewer newbie, and may be too nit-picking in my comments :) Generally Support as reviewed to the bottom of First World War. --Errant (chat!) 09:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 08:02, 6 October 2012 [49].

Archaeoindris[edit]

Nominator(s): – Maky « talk » 19:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is comprehensive and meets all the requirements. – Maky « talk » 19:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
Done. – Maky « talk » 17:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check formatting of quotes within quotes in titles. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I understand this one. Can you please give an example? – Maky « talk » 17:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"How big were the "giant" extinct lemurs of Madagascar?" should be "How big were the 'giant' extinct lemurs of Madagascar?". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Got it. – Maky « talk » 17:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Sasata (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the second largest and highly specialized genera of sloth lemurs." sentence is confusing –– the genus was the second largest? Shouldn't genera be the singular genus? What does "highly specialized" mean in this context? (ok, I figured it out from the text later on, but it's not so clear here; perhaps just leave out the highly specialized part?))
Good point. It's been fixed. – Maky « talk » 00:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • genus should be linked earlier (as "genera", although this might get changed per above)
Due to the previous fix, this isn't an issue any more. – Maky « talk » 00:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three consecutive sentences in the 3rd paragraph conspicuously begin with "Its"
Fixed. – Maky « talk » 00:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. – Maky « talk » 00:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • is Antoine Maurice Fontoynont notable enough for a redlink? How about Académie Malgache? (there's a stub in the French Wikipedia)
I've tried to create articles for Charles Lamberton and Herbert F. Standing, but like Standing, there is so little information about Antoine Maurice Fontoynont that I doubt I could write more than two or three sentences about him based on the sources. As for Académie Malgache, I've created a stub by translating the French article and adding a bit from a news article I found. Thanks for pointing it out. – Maky « talk » 00:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • link phylogeny
Done... though it feels odd adding a link to a table title... – Maky « talk » 00:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree; how about making it a caption instead of a title? Sasata (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like it best as a title... We'll see what other reviewers say. – Maky « talk » 02:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the average reader will know the word "speciose"; is there a way to reword?
Hmmm... seems like basic to me, taking the word species and appending the suffix "-ose". Anyway, I've replaced it in both places. – Maky « talk » 00:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are stored in the collection at the University of Antananarivo." Stored in what collection?
Source did not say, otherwise I would have included it. Maybe say "a collection" (although the source says "the collection")? I assume it's the collection of subfossil lemur remains, but I've never seen it myself, nor do I know much about their collections. – Maky « talk » 00:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mandible contains a complete dentition" Can dentition be used this way? It's defined as "The type, number, and arrangement of a set of teeth." and so seems to be a word used to describe teeth, rather than a synonym for "a set of teeth". Also, it's linked in the following sentence, but should be linked earlier.
I think I've seen it used this way (maybe even in the source for this sentence), but I'm fine with re-wording it. Done. – Maky « talk » 00:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • any chance you could stub Ampasambazimba, or tell us what kind of place it is (city, state, mountain?) (aha, I see later it's a subfossil site; could you mention this earlier?)
Added an explanation on first mention. I will look into creating a stub this evening... although I may wait until I can gather enough sources to write a proper article. – Maky « talk » 00:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • who was Alice Carleton? Martine Vuillaume-Randriamanantena? (redlink-worthy?) Also, can you confirm the spelling is Randriamanantena and not Randrianamanantena as per here.
As with Antoine Maurice Fontoynont above, there is practically nothing about Carleton. As for Martine Vuillaume-Randriamanantena, as far as I can tell, he wrote a few papers about Archaeoindris and maybe a few other subfossil lemurs, and then disappeared. There is nothing written about him by other people (except as citations). – Maky « talk » 00:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... and I verified the spelling as Vuillaume-Randriamanantena: see the original paper. The source you pointed to spelled it both right and wrong on the same page (referencing the same work). My citation and usage is correct. – Maky « talk » 02:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "and colleagues" is more reader-friendly than "et al." in article prose.
Done. – Maky « talk » 00:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jungers et al. generated the current best estimate" How do we know the estimate is "best" if we don't know the actual value?
It's complicated... Basically, the midshaft of the bone bore a lot of stress from the animal's weight during life, and by measuring this (rather than the femoral head diameter, etc., it gives a much better estimate. I'm not really sure how to explain this without making the section horribly complicated and hard to follow... But I'll give it a try. Let me know if it's understandable. – Maky « talk » 00:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The jaw exhibits a long, robust mandibular symphysis (joining of the two halves of the lower jaw), which fuses early." early in what sense? (Developmentally? Spatially?)
Development—fixed. – Maky « talk » 00:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like other sloth lemurs, it is thought to have experienced" "it is thought" is a bit weaselly and easily reworded
How about "it likely experienced..."? – Maky « talk » 00:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • link crown
Done. – Maky « talk » 00:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suggest that it began processing fibrous foods in the mouth." Does "processing" mean chewing? What's the alternative, swallowing the leaves whole and starting "processing" in the stomach?
Yes, it means chewing... but chewing is the first stage of processing (digesting) food. We take this for granted because humans cook their food, have weak chewing muscles, and have severely reduced jaws and teeth. We basically do minimal chewing, just enough to break things up a little bit so that we can swallow. (Many people take it to the extreme and hardly chew at all.) The rest of our digestive tract does most of the work (though its efficiency is greatly improved by proper chewing). In contrast—particularly in animals that eat leaves—chewing is a much more important process. These animals will chew their food for much longer periods of time, and consequently have more robust jaws/teeth as well as massive chewing muscles. Anyway, I remember learning about "food processing" in basic biology. I've tried to tweak it, but I'm not really happy with the result... – Maky « talk » 00:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, given its bulky size, this would be surprising." "Surprising" suggests a degree of astonishment, a feeling that may or may not be felt depending on who might learn this; perhaps it's more neutral to use "unexpected"?
Good point and good suggestion. Fixed. – Maky « talk » 00:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • please give us the dates for the Late Quaternary
The source only says "Late Quaternary", and it seems sources claim that it's refers to the last .5 to 1 million years. I believe the oldest subfossils date to ~26k years ago. I'm not sure what to state without going beyond my source... – Maky « talk » 00:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be worthwhile mentioning that Gigantopithecus blacki was another fossil primate comparable in size (or even larger) than Archaeoindris? I think laypeople like reading about comparisons like that.
It would be, but none of my sources compare Gigantopithecus blacki to Archaeoindris. But from what I understand, only jaw bones have been found for Gigantopithecus, and not much if anything from the postcrania. If that's true, size comparisons are kind of pointless—considering what I said above about best estimates. (This will be more evident when I write about Megaladapis, which had an even larger skull and jaw than Archaeoindris, yet was smaller.) So I agree that it would be good to compare them, but I feel at this point such comparisons may be misleading. If my sources directly compared them, then I'd provide it. But since I would have to bring together separate sources for the comparison, I think it's best not to. – Maky « talk » 00:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This source quickly compares them (citing Simons, 1972, but I can't see p. 117 where this citation is). Sasata (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good source. It's ambiguous enough, yet still makes the important point. I will include it now. Thanks for the review and support!

Support I think the article meets the FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim Nice article, comprehensive and engaging. No duplicate or dab links found. Just a few nitpicks before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there any way of rephrasing the opening paragraph of the lead to reduce the number of repeats of "extinct"?
I took out a couple of them. Better now? – Maky « talk » 20:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • multiple regression analyses — it would look more natural to me to pipe "multiple" into the link, but not a big deal
Done. – Maky « talk » 20:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • savanna — link?
Done, along with a few others. I can't link "bushlands" because the Wiki article for it is Australia-centric. – Maky « talk » 20:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • mistakenly attributed to Archaeoindris, resulting in mistaken interpretations ' — rephrase to avoid repetition?
Done. – Maky « talk » 20:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • lacked trichromatic color vision ' — how can you tell from bones?
I think this is based on what we know about the genetics behind color vision, so it's fairly safe to assume that these lemurs were similar to other lemurs in this regard. I'll have to check the source again tonight to see if there's more to it than that. I'll try to add a simple explanation if one is available. – Maky « talk » 20:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Material added. Hopefully the brief explanations and wikilinks make it understandable. – Maky « talk » 03:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • However — please check that all are essential
Will do that tonight. – Maky « talk » 20:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. – Maky « talk » 03:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • despite its rarity. It would have been vulnerable to hunting and habitat loss."— Ungrammatical, you have full stop and "It", instead of comma and "it", but in any case this reads to me as if you would normally expect rare species to be less vulnerable, which is perverse. Do you mean something like already rare, it would have been vulnerable to hunting and habitat loss.?
Done. Better? – Maky « talk » 20:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really part of the review, but I was interest to see the "Subject bar set " where I might have expected a navbox. Is this a recommended practice that I've overlooked, or something your project is trying?
It's a long story. I created the template because the people were putting in boxes for multiple projects, books, etc, and it was creating a lot of extra white space. This template pulls all of that together into something small, simple, and lacking in white space. It also puts them in the correct order (internal links followed by external links). I discussing it in the appropriate places, got some very positive initial feedback, and then someone laid into it and the feedback stopped. Basically, it seems that everyone on Wiki does whatever they want. This template seems to do what it needs without violating guidelines or policies (that I can tell), so I use it on all the lemur articles I write. It's passed FAC before, though someone usually asks about it. Anyway, that's the short story. – Maky « talk » 20:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I have to run, but will be back tonight to handle the lingering issues. Best, – Maky « talk » 20:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, you only have a couple of minor things to check or fix, so I'll support above assuming you'll soon finish these. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I have made the requested changes. Please let me know if I introduced any problems. – Maky « talk » 03:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review - images are both appropriately tagged with copyright info and contribute to the article. Lemurbaby (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lemurbaby:

  • "Size estimates based on the limited remains..." - weight estimates?
Every source I've seen talked about the "size" of fossil species in terms of weight. If they want to note the height, they say X meters tall or Y meters long. This is also done for living animals, too. For example, we say an African elephant (4 m and 6,048 kg) is larger in size than a giraffe (6 m and 1,600 kg). – Maky « talk » 04:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The jaw exhibits a long..." - in this paragraph you use a lot of present-tense verbiage. It contrasts with the past tense you used before it. What's the system you're using to determine verb tense, and does this fit?
I've set the section to past tense, though some sections and statements necessitate present tense. For example, "Archaeoindris is only known from one subfossil site..." or "The area today is dominated by grasslands..." – Maky « talk » 04:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The explanations of scientific terminology in parentheses seems a little arbitrary, as some more recognizable words are explained (palate, tibia) while other more obscure ones are not. Perhaps it would be best to remove the explanations unless they are critical to an understanding of the sentence or paragraph's larger point (the conclusions drawn from bone comparisons can be understood without needing to understand which bones are being described, for example)... or otherwise go through and add explanations everywhere that highly scientific terminology is used.
This is a long-standing FAC issue. I used to just link terms that needed explaining, but some reviewers expect the explanations inline if the simplest possible word can't be used. If there is no parenthetical explanation, it's because it's too complicated to explain briefly or weave into the text. In those case, I make sure there's a blue link. If some terms are too obvious and the explanations can be removed, I'm fine with that. It's just hard for me to tell what is too obvious since I have had requests for explanations of words that I learned in 5th grade. I agree that "palate" and "tibia" are obvious, but others have disagreed in the past. This issue, unfortunately, sits at the crossroads of a much more significant dispute: Should Wikipedia offer specialist information (for being comprehensive) or just the fundamentals that laypeople can understand? I would argue the former (otherwise this article would be about 3 paragraphs long). If anything, I've come to accept this as a compromise. If you can help draw a clearer line, I'd be very grateful. – Maky « talk » 04:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the difficulty here, and definitely agree with you that the comprehensiveness should be maintained with the brief explanations you've provided.
-Lemurbaby (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spot check:

  • "indris, a common variation of the generic name Indri" - supported, with minor but accurate interpretation
  • "In 1934, Lamberton missed earlier attribution errors..." - supported
  • "Gigantopithecus blacki, a close relative of orangutans..." - supported
  • "Archaeoindris spent considerable time in the trees..." - supported
  • graphic - supported
  • "..selected in honor of Antoine Maurice Fontoynont..." - supported
  • I can't verify other sources as they have no weblink provided, but in light of the accuracy reflected in Maky's other refs, I'm confident they would be equally correct. Sources are all accurately cited and their content correctly represented in the article. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! The eye for tense was very good. I'll have to start watching for that in the future. – Maky « talk » 04:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article meets the FA criteria. Really nice work Maky. Thanks for all the time and energy you invest into producing high quality lemur articles on WP. Lemurbaby (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 08:42, 5 October 2012 [50].

La Coupole[edit]

Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first of three related articles (the other two are Blockhaus d'Éperlecques and Fortress of Mimoyecques) that I will be nominating for featured status. Next March is the 70th anniversary of the start of construction of the three sites described in these articles and I envisage running a triple Today's Featured Article covering all three articles (see User:Prioryman/Heavy Crossbow FA blurb). In advance of that, I'm nominating this article for consideration as a Featured Article. It was recently promoted to Good Article status so I'm reasonably hopeful that it meets the standards required for a FA. Prioryman (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current status
Support
Oppose

n/a

Comments only


Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Missing full bibliographic info for After the Battle
  • FN2: caps
  • FN3: the author should not be the same as the work
  • If this is the one I think it is, I took it out as unnecessary. Prioryman (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN9: page(s)?
  • Not sure what you're getting at here, there's already a page number. Did I miss something? Prioryman (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use a consistent date format
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for newspapers/magazines
  • Done. (I've left out the locations.) Prioryman (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN34: formatting
  • I think I've fixed this, but could you check? Prioryman (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irving: Windsor UK or Canada?
  • Check formatting of quotes within quotes in titles
  • I couldn't see any instances of this - could you give me an example? Prioryman (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what the rationale is for this? One particular page on the museum's website is used as a source, yes, but isn't it normal to have a link to the subject's website's home page in external links? If you consider what would be the most useful place for it from the reader's point of view, wouldn't external links be the most useful and logical place? Prioryman (talk)
  • Clearly not your area of interest, but the couple of lines on the modern museum, which uses the same name, are too skimpy. No mention of "Le mémorial des déportés", "le planétarium 3D" or the two circuits. I was 5 minutes away earlier this year & nearly visited, but this would not have been very helpful as to what was on offer. Johnbod (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been there myself - it's well worth a visit. The planetarium is new (it wasn't there at the time of my visit). I'll see if I can add some more info about it. Prioryman (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've added some further lines about the planetarium and the memorial. Prioryman (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I won't be able to have a full further look for a few days. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additions have resolved the points above; I haven't had a chance to give the article a full look-over yet. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after full read-through. I note the Irving issue, but I think he can be used here. Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, just to clarify, he's no longer being used. I've collapsed the discussion about him so that it doesn't cause confusion. Prioryman (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments about a source

Oppose While this article has much to recommend it, the repeated use of David Irving as a reference is a show stopper for FA status; he's widely discredited, and not a reliable source about anything. Note that the book you've cited is self published as commercial publishers won't touch him. Nick-D (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 12:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I considered this question carefully when using Irving's book. The current edition of the book is self-published, but the original edition was published by Little & Brown in 1965 and was subsequently republished by reputable publishers. It is widely cited by other writers, [51] including very recent authors such as Zaloga. Irving has become infamous for writing revisionist works but John Arquilla comments that the book pre-dates Irving's "drift off into Holocaust denial", while one of those personally involved with the British campaign against the V-weapons sites, Reginald Victor Jones, has called it "a fine job".[52] I've not found any references that question the factual accuracy of the book; in "Creating a Memory of the German Rocket Program for the Cold War", Michael J. Neufeld says: "Irving, who was already noticeably pro-German but not yet infamous as a Nazi apologist and Holocaust denier [my italics], provided the most complete account on both Allied and German sides of the V-weapons campaign in the last two years of the war, but it is noteworthy that, although he did much more original research than the others, he minimised the Mittelwerk/Nordhausen story about which he certainly knew more."[53] I've not used Irving as a source for anything to do with Mittelwerk/Nordhausen (which doesn't come into this article anyway). Note that Neufeld only questions the book's completeness, not its accuracy, but is nonetheless happy to call it "the most complete account" of the V-weapons. Irving's book is used solely as a source for translated quotes from a number of original German documents rather than historical judgements. In Telling Lies About Hitler: The Holocaust, History and the David Irving Trial, Richard J. Evans mentions the book but gives no indication of any controversy about it.[54] The reviews at the time of publication were highly favourable; Duncan Sandys, who headed the British committee that led the fight against the V-weapons, wrote in the London Evening Standard that it was an "authoritative account" (and quite honestly he was better placed to give that judgement than anyone else given his depth of personal knowledge). I certainly agree that Irving's later works, particularly his revisionist histories, are unreliable but there is no indication that this particular work or these particular quotes are unreliable. Not everything he wrote was revisionist. I also don't think it's realistic to exclude this source when many other professional works of recent vintage - including those used in the article - have cited it. When the book is still widely used by current historians, well reviewed, and apparently uncontroversial, I could see no good reason to exclude it as a source. Prioryman (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As part of his investigation into Irving's work, Richard Evans demonstrated that Irving was systematically misrepresenting sources in order to further his political views as early as his 1962 work on the bombing of Dresden (please see the online version of his expert report here), so it's not correct to say that he was once a good historian, but became unreliable. In the paragraph you note, Evans actually states that "despite their somewhat specialised titles, these books in many cases aroused widespread controversy". In his book Evans argues that the only reason Irving was once considered credible by non-specialists is that few reviewers and historians followed up on the citations he provided (which often didn't support his claims, or were so vague as to be useless). As such, I'm afraid that I can't support an FA nomination for an article which uses Irving as a source. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you look at Evans a bit more closely. He says that Irving's books in many cases aroused controversy - not that they all did. He mentions The Mare's Nest in passing but says nothing substantive about the book other than mentioning it. He gives no indication whatsoever that it has ever been controversial or that its contents have ever been disputed. Can you provide me with a source that indicates any controversy or dispute over the book's accuracy? Prioryman (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Prioryman, I've actually read it cover to cover twice :) Evans' basic argument is that all of Irving's work is unreliable as a result of the systematic misrepresentation of sources which began in his first book. Please replace this with references to other works. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments As noted earlier, the article is in pretty good shape. My comments are:

  • "immense concrete dome" - 'immense' is a pretty vague term, but implies that this is really vast. I'd suggest replacing this with 'large' or something more specific.
  • It is, or it was anyway. My understanding (which unfortunately I've not been able to reliably source) is that at the time of its construction it was the largest dome in the world. When you're under it, it certainly feels vast. Prioryman (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I'll take your word for it :) (it didn't look that big when I checked on Google Earth) Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From first-person experience, I believe part of the dome (the outer edge) is now partly covered by shrubs, so it probably looks smaller from above than it really is. As I think I mentioned in the article, the Germans sought to camouflage it with soil cover so it wouldn't be very surprising if it's less visible from the air than it might otherwise have been. Prioryman (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, after repeated heavy bombing" - should this be "However, as a result of repeated heavy bombing" or similar? (given that it's the bombing which prevented the site from becoming operational)
  • Yes, fair point. I've made that change. Prioryman (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'background' section should start with a paragraph which (very briefly) discusses the role of the V-2 missile and its technical characteristics; the current first paragraph of this section is rather jarring as it doesn't have any context.
  • Two consecutive sentences in the first paragraph of the 'Design and location' section start with 'it', and is it possible to be more specific here than 'the Germans'?
  • Did Hitler's involvement in this site's construction mean that it was considered to be particularly important? It seems pretty unusual for a national leader to be consulted on such details (but then again, Hitler was ordering individual army divisions around at this time)
  • Given the scale of the project I'd imagine it was considered particularly important, but then again, as you say, Hitler was notorious for being a micro-manager. Prioryman (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the intended purpose of the 'huge octagonal chamber'?
  • It's already described in the fifth para of this section: "the rockets would be moved into the octagonal preparation chamber where they would be lifted to a vertical position for fueling and arming." Prioryman (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I missed that - I think a hint to the purpose of this room when it's first mentioned would be good though Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a brief mention of it being a "rocket-preparation chamber" to this earlier mention. Prioryman (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did the Allies first detect this facility (eg, was it through aerial reconnaissance, intelligence collected by agents on the ground or the resistance, or signals intelligence?)
  • I'm afraid I don't have that information - it's something I would have to look into. Prioryman (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the start of January, Allied reconnaissance could see an elaborate system of camouflage on the hill top, installed to conceal the dome" - likewise, I presume that you mean "Allied reconnaissance aircraft" here
  • Did the German military attempt to defend this site against air attacks?
  • Plainly they did, since there are various reports of Allied aircraft being fired upon while bombing it, but I don't have any specific sources describing the air defences of the site. Again, it's something that would require further research, probably necessitating the use of primary sources. Prioryman (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, fair enough. From my personal experiences, secondary sources rarely cover deployments of air defence units. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The body of the article doesn't note that it was the Canadian Army which happened to capture this site as stated in the lead
  • The identity of the liberators seems to have been a bit more complicated than I first thought; I've broadened it to refer to Allied forces in the lead, with more specificity in the body. Prioryman (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the 'Espace Naturel Régional'?
  • As far as I'm aware, the regions of France each have a coordinating body – an Espace Naturel Régional – which promotes and develops regional historic and natural parks. That's just from my own personal understanding, though; the French Wikipedia doesn't even have an article on the topic so I would guess they are not widely known.
  • "the 8,000 people who were shot and deported" - should this be "people who were shot or deported"? Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, true, not much point doing both! Fixed. Prioryman (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my comments have now been addressed; great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Discussion on David Irving moved to this FAC's talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 12:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "64° 50' and 99° 50'": Just FYI, how much precision to use depends on whether the precision is important to the story and who your readers are. I'm not going to change it, but if I were writing it I'd go with "65° and 100°" here. - Dank (push to talk) 20:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Sourcing issue resolved
'Oppose on criteria 1c: Use of the discredited fabulist David Irving. All of Irving's purportedly historical works have been thoroughly discredited on the grounds of unacceptably poor methodology, including, but not limited to, extreme tendentiousness which in the opinion of the community of historical scholars amounts to wide scale dishonesty, analysis of causative factors that is absurd and absurdly tendentious, narrativisations that grossly misrepresent importance, adherence to a theoretical perspective that has been discredited in the discipline since 1945 and which has been demonstrated to taint the entirety of his work. These criticism are not limited to Irving's specific works in relation to the final solution to the Jewish question in Europe, but have been demonstrated to exist in all of his works. Any use of Irving indicates that 1c is not met. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please give me a reference to a source that demonstrates that this source, The Mare's Nest, has been discredited? It is cited by literally every single hard copy book that I've consulted on the V-weapons, including the most recent publications. What I'm seeing here is a lot of people saying that The Mare's Nest is a bad source; however, I've repeatedly asked for evidence of that and have been provided none. Give me a reference, or a link, or anything really, that addresses the reliability of this book. This is supposed to be a source-based encyclopedia. If you can't provide a source for your assertions, you shouldn't be making them. Prioryman (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source, claim, article. Irving is polluted. I don't care if every other scholar and military professional cites Irving. Those scholars and professionals are capable of making a bad source good. We're not. Everything Irving himself has produced is tainted. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, in other words, you have no source. Thank you for clarifying that your opposition is based solely on your unsourced personal opinion. Prioryman (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The oppose is clearly actionable—remove a fallacious and unreliable source from the article. Your choice not to action the oppose has clear consequences. I encourage you to review the good article criteria (in particular 2b and 2c). Fifelfoo (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've sought and obtained advice from a number of leading historians, including Richard Evans (mentioned above) on this issue. In the light of their feedback I've taken out the direct reference to Irving's book. Essentially the same information is still in the article, but cited to other sources. Hopefully this resolves the sourcing issue. Prioryman (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. I'll post a full review later today/over the weekend. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per Nick-D, this works entirely for me. Historians are capable of deriving scholarly insights from the most unlikely locations. Much like Nick-D, this does oblige me to supply a fuller review. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll do my usual thing when you've had a chance to respond to Nick and Fifelfoo. - Dank (push to talk) 12:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Put the titles in Zaloga 2003 and Hinsley into title case.
  • Add a space between pages in cite #3.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 20:30, 2 October 2012 [55].

Pink Floyd[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating Pink Floyd for featured article because after almost three years of sporadic work on the article, and a thorough copyedit last month, I believe it now meets or exceeds the FA criteria. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. For the sake of disclosure, I will say that I've worked with Gabe quite a bit and did some minimal copyediting work on this article prior to the nomination. However, I absolutely think it is a superb article, and Gabe and everyone else who put the work into generating the prose and the content have done a fantastic job. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think everything has or will be said below. Gabe let me know if you need help with anything. Mlpearc (powwow) 01:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Quick comments after a brief glance-through:

  • Lead: needs rewriting. Excessive attention given to the Barrett era as well as the 2000s reunions (which barely merit a mention). I suggest the Radiohead model of giving every album (or group of similar albums) their due via a sentence or so. You'll also avoid list-y sentences like "The Dark Side of the Moon (1973), Wish You Were Here (1975), Animals (1977), and The Wall (1979)", just for the sake mentioning every album by name. I also think the lead should mirror the article—their legacy should be the last paragraph, not the first.
I reworked the lead, trimming out the excess Barrett and reunion info, and rearranging the graphs as you suggested. I disagree with your suggestion: "giving every album their due via a sentence or so", and prefer to use the short list of five albums in one sentence. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aren't those "Associated acts" just old names for the same band?
Yes they are, and it's my understanding that this is okay, i.e.: "A group from which this group has spun off". Maybe we need more clarification on this point. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These have been removed, issue resolved. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 08:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Album-cover images: Don't really meet our non-free use criteria and should be removed. (unless the images themselves are specifically discussed in the prose, which they shouldn't be, except maybe TDSOTM)
All the album covers included in the article are discussed in the prose. As Thorgerson and the band's cover art is a significant aspect of their artistic contribution, I tend to think they should be included. If others disagree with me, or if the covers do not pass the image review, I will certainly remove them. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This FURs have been brought up to standards and several images have been removed. This issue has been resolved. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 08:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No music samples to illustrate their different musical styles?
This is not a requirement to my knowledge, and I would rather not add them unless needed. IMO, the sound samples belong at the song and album pages if anywhere. Again, if others disagree with me here I will add some. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their influence on other artists is a surprisingly short two-sentences, one of which is an unattractive list of names. Check out R.E.M.#Legacy for a model section on how a band influenced others.
I disagree here also. The above linked section is really a mix of musical style, influence and album sales, which the Floyd article treats separately. I am certainly open to discussion on this though. Also, as a matter of sourcing, I'm not sure what could be done here other than a quote farm of people stating why they like Pink Floyd. Maybe this is a personal preference issue. I'll see how it plays out over the course of the FAC. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a fan of the "Main article:" tags. Wouldn't linking the album on first mention be enough?
Another personal preference issue. Some would say they are needed, others disgree. I see no harm in including them, and indeed they are easier to locate then to search a 10,000 word article for the first mention of an album. Again, if others complain about them I will consider removing the tags. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the use of "Main article:" tags for articles on individual albums where you have a short summary section on the album is perfectly appropriate and pretty much standard procedure. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are Musical style, lyrical themes and live performances part of a band's legacy? They should be their own section.
Done. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Band members: you don't really need a separate section for this for five people. And that "Timeline" is as ghastly as it is unnecessary. Delete the whole thing please?—indopug (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - some bugs in citations

  • Shaffner 1991 (Shaffner or Shaffer?), Povey 2005 (no 2005 citation), Harris 2006 (2005?) have broken harv links. You can install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js to check articles for such problems. Make sure, that author's name and year are exactly identical in harv-template and citation.
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fitch 2001 is listed as a source, but not used as an actual reference in the main text (==> "further reading"). GermanJoe (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images are very problematic. We have a very large number of non-free album covers with useless template rationales. It's unusual that album covers are going to be needed in artist articles; unless the design of the cover is particularly notable (and, to demonstrate the significance, we're probably going to need explicit discussion in the article...) they are rarely going to be needed outside the article on the album. The lead image is also a little questionable when we have a free image of the band in later life lower down the article, but I seem to remember that this is a discussion that we've had before. J Milburn (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All five of the album covers used in the article are explicity discussed in the prose. Floyd's album art is needed to convey that aspect of their artistic contribution. Also, I'm curious, why would sound files be okay to use but not album art, and why can cover art be used at album pages but not artist pages? What in particular is wrong with the current FUR for the infobox image? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there has been concern raised a couple of times regarding the lead image. My involvement (I've been asked to comment) is that an earlier upload had been deleted because it had an inappropriate use rationale, and I uploaded it again with a more appropriate and descriptive rationale. As far as I am aware, it is one of the only three known images of the band with all the prominent members. The other two images were taken by the same photographer at the same photo shoot, and this is the best of the three. The concerns raised have been a) the use rationale (which is now OK), b) that it is a poor quality image, and there are better quality more attractive images available, and c) that it is a non-free image, and there are free use images available of the band in performance. The argument in favour is that this is an historic and encyclopaedic image which we are allowed to use because of its uniqueness and irreplaceability. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gabe, if there is explicit discussion of each of these album covers, then perhaps they are a useful addition. However, it's impossible to judge that from the useless, copy-paste rationales that are currently used for the album covers. In response to your questions... Also, I'm curious, why would sound files be okay to use but not album art... I am not sure where you believe I have said this. Sometimes non-free sound files are a useful addition in the context of discussion of the music, but there's no kind of entitlement to use them. Equally, album covers may be useful in the context of the discussion of their artistry (or the controversy they caused or what have you). ...and why can cover art be used at album pages but not artist pages? There is a general consensus that the album art adds significantly to an article about the album, in the same way that there is a consensus about book covers on book articles, or corporate logos on company articles. This does not extend to related articles (such as author articles, or articles on the corporation's products. SilkTork, my objection is that we quite clearly have a free image of Pink Floyd. Unless you're going to pretend that they are not performing as Pink Floyd on this image, then you're going to have to accept that we have free images of Pink Floyd. If we have free images of Pink Floyd, we have no business leading the article on Pink Floyd with a non-free image. J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard before that templates should not be used for FURs, would it be better if I copy pasted each field separately? Are you saying that the album images are okay to use but the FURs need improvement? Re: "Unless you're going to pretend that they are not performing as Pink Floyd on this image", I don't have to pretend J Milburn, the file is a collage of post-Floyd images taken at least 10 years after any activity; none of the pics were taken when any of the members were in Pink Floyd. I will wait to see if others share your opinion that these images as objectionable enough to oppose. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Templates can be used, but copy-paste rationales (as are provided by templates) are useful only when incredibly generic usages are being made- album covers in articles about the album, for instace. The NFCC require that separate, specific rationales are required. We need you to provide specific rationales explaining what this particular cover is adding to this particular article. Not generic bumph, as is provided by a template. J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the image meets Wikipedia:Non-free content because of its historical and iconic significance and because it cannot be replaced by a free image. That there are other free images in the article does not in itself impact on the image, as they are not of the same unique line-up. An argument could be made, however, that the article does not comment directly on the image. The relevant wording is: "Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate. Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance." Does the image "aid in illustrating historical events"? That, I feel, is the pertinent argument. I feel it does, but that perhaps the caption could enlighten the reader to the situation - that this is a picture of the band at the point of transition and tension. Here is another image from the same shoot - [56]. It's not used as much as the image in the article. The image used in the article is quite iconic - perhaps because Barrett and Waters are looking in opposite directions. Be useful to get some sourced material which discuses the image SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the specific question if whether an album cover can be used in this article: The WP:NFCI non-free use guideline says "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." That means that the article has to be analyzing the album, not the album's cover. As long as this article analyzes the albums, their covers can be used in this article. Of course, the rationales provided must be specific and detailed, and the album cover must be degraded, etc. --Noleander (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As has been said, repeatedly by several people, this is wrong. 18:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Bingo! Get an idea - follow it up: "The expanded five-member group posed for photographs, though Barrett stood out from the pack, detached. With eyes fixed in the distance, arms crossed, Syd stood behind his bandmates, out of focus, and eclipsed." It's late here in the UK so I'm going to bed - I'll put something in the article about that picture tomorrow. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, based on the non-free content issues I have outlined above. If these are resolved, I am happy to withdraw my opposition. J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, are you saying you will oppose until the images are removed, or you will oppose until the FURs are improved? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose while there is still an issue. If you sort the rationales out, I would potentially be open to the album covers remaining- I would be willing to reassess. J Milburn (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegates- I am discussing this issue with Gabe, and progress is being made. Hopefully the issues will be resolved soon. J Milburn (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the non-free content issues outlined above have now been resolved, J Milburn pinged 25 September. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 08:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comment - Will add more comments later, but I'm a little surprised that Pink Floyd at Pompeii doesn't appear anywhere in the article at all outside a passing mention in a footnote, as it receives at least a sentence or two in most Floyd biographies. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is already 9,500 words long, so there is little room for specifics without making the article too large. There are many things that could be mentioned but this is an overview article written in summary style. I'm not sure what level of detail you are suggesting, maybe you could clarify. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the relevant sentence - however, that does suggest that the article can't be considered comprehensive (because it would get too long) and can't qualify as FA. I know some GAs can't be FAs because they're too short - maybe this is the reverse? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander

  • Wording: "By 1967, Pink Floyd had begun to attract the attention ..." - That phrasing seems a bit too passive & I find it annoying. Can you just use the plain "In 1967 Pink Floyd began..." or "Pink Floyd began to ... in 1967" or similar?
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange source description: "Doctor of philosophy and author Patrick Croskery ..." - Animals is a really famous album, so the only persons that should be quoted here are very notable music reviewers, say from the Rolling Stones or some major publication. I don't know who Croskery is, but if he is a major reviewer, that fact should be before his name, not his college degree. Even if this quote is for the "Themes" section (not the Animals section) I'd still expect 1st person quotes to be from a more notable person within the music industry or art community.
I used Croskery because he is one of the few good sources to intellectually analyse the philosophical nature of Floyd's lyrics. Do you know of a better source? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sure he is a fine source. My point is that the job description before his name is so vague. Is he noted for analyzing music? For being a Pink Floyd expert? Why should the reader care about Croskery's opinion?
He is an author who is also a Doctor of philosophy and professor. Should I just mention his name only and leave out his description? How about the other philosophers I cited in the section? I thought this was needed to help explain why he is being quoted as an expert on philosophy viv a vis Floyd lyrics. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct, for obscure persons named in the prose, a job description is needed. I was hoping he was some famous author, but he is not. The "Doctor of philosophy" is particularly confusing to me (US) because that means anyone with a PhD degree in any field, e.g. Chemistry. Maybe just change his description to "Scholar PC .." or "Author PC ..." .. that would remedy the issue. --Noleander (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section vs. paragraph: In the "Exploitation and oppression" section, there is a paragraph on the Animals album; then a 2nd paragraph follows starting with "The album's characters include the "Dogs",..." That reads as if the entire section is about the Animals album. If that is the intention of the section, maybe the section title should include "Animals". Or, better, discuss other albums/songs within this section.
Yeah, its all about the lyrics of Animals as they relate to exploitation and oppression. I will try to dig up some examples from other albums, but my feeling was that this sub-section is already detailed enough to convey the message. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording: "... and would be classified by some..." - use plainer words. If you are saying that during the 60s & 70s they were categorized that way, try "... and they were classified as ..."; or if that categorization is still applicable, try "... and they are categorized..". Or maybe "... and their work from that era is categorized ..."
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Material from quote not in prose: "It's hard to see why we were cast as the first British psychedelic group. ..." - that is in a quote box, but the prose next to it doesn't have comparable material. If the band was categorized as "psychedelic" in the 1960s, that should be stated in the prose (which does already have "Pink Floyd began their career at the vanguard of London's underground psychedelic music scene ..." but that is not the same has saying they were the first.
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes, citations, and sources look good.
Thank you. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Further reading" - Are there any documentaries or video interviews? You've got a good list of books, but there must be some video materials, no?
Added five docs. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More details: " .... Pink Floyd's first experience playing large stadiums, the size of which became an issue." - What exactly was the issue? The following sentences are rather vague, and could be a problem in any live venue. It sounds more like the band was just burned out, or ??? If there was not a specific problem with large venues, then that sentence should be reworded.
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording: "The Wall concept also spawned an eponymous film,..." - To me, eponymous means that the film was named after the band, not the underlying album. I'd just remove "eponymous".
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plainer words: "The division of royalties became a difficult subject during production of the album...." - Better would be to say that "The division of royalties was a source of conflict between band members." if that indeed was the case. Is it possible to add a specific quote or incident to illustrate the point?
Fixed, and added quoted material to illustrate point. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Medical terminology: " ... staring off with a blunted affect and refusing to move his lips ...." - Either that was an official medical diagnosis, in which case that should be stated; or (2) that is just a description of his behavior, in which case that is a very obscure term and you should probably remove the blue link and just put in plain words (" ... he did not respond to questions from the hosts and stared off into space ..."). Maybe the blue link cold be put in a footnote?
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording: "... it came time to mime "See Emily Play" ..." - "mime" confused me a bit ... I'm thinking Marcel Marceau. Would "lip sync" be better? or is mime the more common term in UK?
I think mime is more common in the UK as the sources specifically use that term. Also, it helps avoid the redundancy with "move his lips" earlier in the sentence. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify: " Barrett agreed to leave, and Pink Floyd agreed to Blackhill's legal entitlement to receive royalties in perpetuity from the band's previous recordings" - The 2nd half of that sentence doesnt seem too important: the managers were getting a cut of all proceeds from songs that were produced under their mgmt. Could that be eliminated from the article? Or is there more to the story?
Fixed, trimmed out as excess detail. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify: "Pink Floyd performed at the first free concert in Hyde Park..." - I have a hard time believing that there were no free concerts in that park before 1968. Do you mean PF's first free concert?
According to the sources it was the first ever free concert in the park. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date that Barret left: "Working with Barrett eventually proved too difficult, and matters came to a head en route to a performance in Southampton when a band member asked if they should collect Barrett. According to Gilmour, the answer was "Nah, let's not bother", signalling the end of Barrett's tenure with them." - Month of his departure is important. I see that March is mentioned in the next sentence as the date of legal separation, but when did the "lets not bother" event happen?
Clarified, fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall it is a great article. Leaning to Support, once the above issues are addressed.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great review! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Support, based on recent improvements. --Noleander (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review by Noleander

  • File:Pink_Floyd_-_all_members.jpg - This appears to meet the WP:NFCI requirements under clause #8 " Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance." I have updated the fair use rationale to specifically address those three essential criteria (no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance).
  • File:Hapshash-UFO.jpg - This appears to meet the WP:NFCI requirements under clause #8 " Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance."
  • File:Saucerful of secrets2.jpg - This is included under WP:NFCI clause #1: "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." This article does indeed meet that requirement: an entire section of this article is devoted to the album. The rationale text, however, is a bit boilerplate and needs to be made more specific to the PF article.
  • File:Roger waters leeds 1970.jpg - The photographer granted a CC-BY-SA license for this photo, so it is okay.
  • File:Dark Side of the Moon.png - This is included under WP:NFCI clause #1: "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." This article does indeed meet that requirement: an entire section of this article is devoted to the album. The rationale text, however, is a bit boilerplate and needs to be made more specific to the PF article.
  • File:WishYouWereHere-300.jpg - This is included under WP:NFCI clause #1: "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." This article does indeed meet that requirement: an entire section of this article is devoted to the album. The rationale text, however, is a bit boilerplate and needs to be made more specific to the PF article.
  • File:Pink Floyd-Animals-Frontal.jpg - This is included under WP:NFCI clause #1: "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." This article does indeed meet that requirement: an entire section of this article is devoted to the album. The rationale text, however, is a bit boilerplate and needs to be made more specific to the PF article.
  • File:Astoria (Péniche).jpg - Copyright holder provided a CC-BY-SA license.
  • File:Pink Floyd - Division Bell.jpg - This is included under WP:NFCI clause #1: "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." This article does indeed meet that requirement: an entire section of this article is devoted to the album. The rationale text, however, is a bit boilerplate and needs to be made more specific to the PF article.
  • File:Pink floyd live 8 london.jpg - Photographer provided photo with a CC BY 2.0 license.
  • File:DarkSideOfTheMoon1973.jpg - Photographer provided photo with a CC BY 3.0 license.
  • File:Pinkfloyd.png - This is a composite of four images: three have licenses. The fourth is a CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 license http://www.flickr.com/photos/edberman/500752312/. Need to check that more thoroughly because it limits use to noncommercial. Will investigate that further.
This image's description page contains the note "This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 13 August 2008 by the administrator or reviewer Mattbuck, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the stated license on that date." That makes me think that the 4th image had a CC BY-SA 2.5 license (on Flickr) in 2008, but the Flicker owner has since changed the license to CC BY-NC-SA 2.0. --Noleander (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The guidance at Wikipedia:CCPS says that the NC licenses are not acceptable for WP. So this is a tough call: should we rely on the assessment made in 2008 by Mattbuck, and assume that the photo owner changed their license within the past 4 years? --Noleander (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Side conversation not directly related to this FAC but related to image usage in general

End Image Review by Noleander. --Noleander (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect Noleander, some of this shows a severe lack of understanding of the non-free content criteria; I do not think you should be offering image reviews. "This is included under WP:NFCI clause #1: "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." This article does indeed meet that requirement: an entire section of this article is devoted to the album." It is not true that any article with a section devoted to an album can support the cover art of the album. Cover art is added only when it adds significantly to the article, and the mere fact that there is a section discussing the album does not mean that the cover art would add to it. Instead, only if the album cover itself is in some way significant (through noted artistry, controversy or such) would it add significantly to an article other than the article on the album itself. (If you're not convinced, consider this: It is undeniable that there is considerable analysis of, for instance, the various Harry Potter books on J. K. Rowling. However, the article does not need the covers, as the covers themselves just are not significant. Do you feel we should be rushing into that article to add cover art?) J Milburn (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I don't understand your point. Are you saying the PF article does not contain "critical commentary of that item [album]"? The sections on the albums are clearly making critical commentary on the albums, no? NFCI does not contain the requirement that the image "adds significantly to the article", but even if there were a requirement, it is clearly met in this article: the album covers are a critical component of the band's history. The Rowling examples are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: there are scores of examples where copyrighted book covers are in the author's article. --Noleander (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article obviously does contain critical commentary on the album. It's just the case that critical commentary on an album does not automatically justify the use of a cover. Here we have yet another catastrophic failure to understand our non-free content policy on your part. "NFCI does not contain the requirement that the image "adds significantly to the article"..." Nobody cares what the NFCI say. They're not important. What's important is the non-free content criteria, and they most certainly do require that. Again, for the good of everyone here, please step away from this issue until you are more acquainted with it. (And "The Rowling examples are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: there are scores of examples where copyrighted book covers are in the author's article." Really? Go on. Give me two decent author articles which contain non-free cover images.) J Milburn (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This issue (putting a book/album cover in the author's article) has come up many times before, but the WP community has never created the rule that "book and album covers can only be included in the article devoted to the book/album". That is because there are times when it is appropriate to include the book/album in the author's article. Why don't we see what some other editors say? --Noleander (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NFCI #1 nearly universally is only applied to articles devoted to albums (not discographies) where, because of the notability of the stand-alone article, there will be commentary and ergo allowance to use the image per NFCC#8 (as part of the album's branding). All of PF's albums are pretty much notable, so the album use covers there are fine. But this article is about the band; while it is likely necessary to include some commentary about each album to flesh out the band's career, the full commentary should be at each album separately. But the album covers here would be excess use since they will exist at the individual pages; perhaps the only album cover with a likely chance of staying is the Dark Side of the Moon one given my impression of how iconic that is for the band, but you have to have sources to show that iconic-ness. As an example, Rush (band) (an FAC) includes the back album cover of 2112 primarily because the Starman imagery became associated with the band, as described in that article. I would imagine that with some work, the same could be said about Dark Side's prism image. But any of the other covers would fail NFCC, specifcally NFCC#3 for minimal use when they have separate articles. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. I note that The Beatles article includes one album cover. I guess I'm a little unclear where this "icon-ness" litmus test is coming from. The various WP pages on non-free imagery (such as Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria) do not say that a non-free image can only be used in one article (to the contrary, it says: "One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article"). NFCC #3 says "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information" which means that we should not use 2 images of the same album cover (not that the album cover cannot be used in 2 articles). Can you help me out by pointing to the WP policy/guideline that is the basis for the litmus test that a highly iconic album cover is permissible, but not-so-iconc album covers are not (given that all the albums are critically analyzed in the article)? --Noleander (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not easy. The first thing to remember is that NFCC#3a (minimal use of NFC) is the easiest one that dissaudes the reuse of album covers on band pages; if there's an article for the album, the album cover will certainly be there, so it's not like we're depraving the reader of that at all. The threshold to allow the use needs to tie the album cover to the band moreso than the album itself. Again, the Starman image from Rush does this because it ties that image to reuse throughout the band's career. I'm not 100% convinced that the Sgt Pepper cover at Beatles is as well a reason, but I can accept that the cover being one of the most recognizable and recreated covers to be a good reason to include it. (That page also gets away with the White Album having a free-media cover but that's not the point here). So I can by the same logic argue for the inclusion of the Dark Side cover here, working on the assumption (haven't checked for sources) that the iconic-ness of that album cover to immediately identify it with Pink Floyd would be an acceptable use. Any of their other album covers, except perhaps The Wall, simply don't have that iconicness, so would fail this rough test. But I can't give a checklist of items to look for to confirm any other use, just that once you're past use #1 on the album page where there would be no dispute, every subsequent reuse needs a very strong reason to include. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoying the idea that we must be careful not to "deprave" our readers. :-) Jheald (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, but it sounds like you and Milburn are adhering to the unwritten rule "Album/book covers can only go in the album/book article, unless they are super iconic, in which case they can also go in the author article." If that is the rule, cool. I'm trying to figure out if it is WP policy, or just a gut feeling that some editors have. This issue has come up hundreds of times in WP, so why hasn't this rule been written down yet? --Noleander (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, that's not 100% true. There are cases of movies and video games and other media where there is a soundtrack but the soundtrack is itself non-notable or just barely enough info to justify an article, so we do include the album art + infobox there. The point that's being made here is that we're starting that we already have one justifiable use of the album art on the album page per NFCI#1. Any other use immediately highlights NFCC#3a, so all other NFCC factors have to show enough acceptable use to override that; this is a point alluded to in the cautions above NFCI that all other NFCC requirements still have to be met. So when we're discussion an album in the context of the band's history, most of the time the cover gives no added information to the reader beyond visual identification, which is already there on the album page. The examples where it does give the reader visual info - Rush, Beatles, and the Dark Side here - are cases where in context its not so much about the album but about the album artwork, necessitating the visual aspect. So that gives a very strong cause for NFCC#8 that NFCC#3a would allow.--MASEM (t) 17:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Noleander, your summary is a bit strong; but it's worth recognising (as Milburn reminds above) that the fundamental policy rules here are the NFCC criteria. NFCI #1 is essentially a community assessment of the NFCC #8 rule where the album is the topic of the whole article. In that case, the community has come to the view that showing the cover does add significantly to the understanding gained of the topic of the article. But the calculation is different when the album itself is not the topic of the whole article. Then you can't just rely on NFCI #1 album-article general-case scenario, you really need to argue why in this specific case the image is adding something important to reader comprehension, that they wouldn't otherwise gain. Another thing to bear in mind is that the community has expressed a specific antipathy to illustrated discographies, or anything that looks like them. So a sequence of cover after cover is should be avoided if at all possible. That's not to say that no album covers can be used. The Dark Side of the Moon prism has become iconic. Also, the Division Bell head is (in my view) a particularly good way to illustrate the lengths the band allowed Storm Thorgerson to go to in creating spectacular images for the band. Specific cases for some other cover images might be found as well. But, at the very least, it makes the article more interesting if other images can be found rather than an uninterrupted run of familiar album covers which can also be seen on the album article. So, say, a free image of the inflatable pig at Battersea power station (as restaged recently) might actually be more effective as an image for Animals than just another album cover. Above all, what we're trying to get away from is the idea that we might carelessly be using other people's images just as decorative wallpaper for our articles. A parade of album covers can give just that feel. So instead, are there more interesting images that could be found? And if non-free images must be used, do they genuinely earn the cost of admission by being truly informative and really contributing something to reader understanding, that genuinely could not be achieved in any other way? From someone who strongly believes in the appropriate use of non-free content when it really does add something to reader understanding, those are the kind of questions you need to be working from. Jheald (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the polite and rational comments :-) Yes, the key question is which albums meet the requirement of NFCC #8. Including all album covers would be verging on the prohibited discography; so we should limit it only to albums that were especially significant in the band's history, and whose illustration helps the reader get a better feel for the group. Based on a review of the sources, it seems like Dark Side, Animals, The Wall, and Division Bell may meet that threshold. --Noleander (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Following on Jheald's comment, if you use the balloon pig for Animals, you could use something like File:Roger Waters The Wall Live Kansas City 30 October 2010.jpeg (a shot from The Wall Live tour) which is free and shows off The Wall's motive. There's no question (well , 99.9999% assuredity) that Dark Side's cover can meet NFCC for the band's page easily because of its iconic nature. I'm not 100% of Jheald's suggestion Division Bell - but at least the rationale he suggests has some credence to work towards. That gives you two non-free album images with free images for other facets. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we continue the policy discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#RfC:_Album_covers_in_artist_articles? That is a new RfC that was just created to try to get clarity on the WP-wide policy. Once that is resolved, we can then apply the consensus to the images in this PF article. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is going to change, and it's seemingly only you who needs clarification that, yes, images can be used if and only if they meet the non-free content criteria. Please, it's not difficult. J Milburn (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More sensible image review from J Milburn

Let it be known, in case it isn't already, that I consider Noleander's understanding of the non-free content guidelines and policies, and consequently his image review, to be severely lacking. I am not, as some may have been led to believe, a rabid deletionist, and, considering the subject matter, a lot of these non-free images are probably justified.

  • The lead image I'd prefer to see gone. We have a free image of the band, even if one of the members is not in it. I am willing to let this drop if I am a lonely voice.
Which free image of the band are you referring to? The one you suggested, File:Pinkfloyd.png, is not in fact an image of Pink Floyd at all, but a collage of images of former members of Pink Floyd from a decade after they became inactive. Also, per Noleander, the image of Nick Mason in the collage has no copyright info whatsoever. So it seems the image you prefer is the least justified of them all. Again, which free image of Pink Floyd are you suggesting we use? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the collage. (The perceived copyright issue is not a problem- this is why we have that "this image has been checked" template. Once the image has been freely released, it cannot be revoked.) However, we also have File:DarkSideOfTheMoon1973.jpg- I'm not sure you could really deny that this image is of Pink Floyd; they're even performing, which some may call preferable. No, it's perhaps not as interesting as the non-free image, but that is a necessary sacrifice that has to be made in the name of using free content. J Milburn (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Hapshash-UFO.jpg should probably go. Yes, it's a significant time in the career, but this does not mean that it needs to be illustrated. The claim that it illustrates the psychadelic nature of the music is a solid one, but, in that regard, it seems to be redundant to the next image, which also does that.
  • File:Saucerful of secrets2.jpg is justified, but its rationale needs to be tightened up. The cover itself is clearly significant, as evidenced by the discussion of its design and purpose. The rationale needs to tie this image to this article, explaining what it illustrates, what it adds and so forth. It would also be useful if the caption tied it to the text of the article.
  • File:Dark Side of the Moon.png is justified, as above, but improvements are needed, as above.
  • File:WishYouWereHere-300.jpg seems to be one which could go if you were looking to cut down; however, again, there is solid, sourced discussion. I am not opposed to it staying in the article, provided the rationale is cleaned up (and perhaps the caption is tweaked) as above.
  • File:Pink Floyd-Animals-Frontal.jpg is as above- OK, but perhaps not absolutely essential. Again, rationale cleanup definitely required if it's staying.
  • File:Pink Floyd - Division Bell.jpg is justified. Again, rationale cleanup definitely required if it's staying. Also, it should probably be reduced a little- 300 by 300 px is the general requirement for album covers.
  • The free images are all absolutely fine.

And, with that, I am done. No sweeping changes, and no demands for urgent deletion. Just addressing what is needed with closer attention to what our policies actually are. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case it's lost in the discussion below, I'm happy, after edits, meets our various image policies. J Milburn (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Following on the above, there's a few points I'd add.
  • File:Saucerful of secrets2.jpg and File:Pink Floyd - Division Bell.jpg - the discussion on the album art makes it more than justified for inclusion on the album article, but I still question why it helps the reader to understand about the band (As I read it: "What point is there in my understanding about the band Pink Floyd that the Division Bell cover was inspired by Moai statues?"). That said, if there was a section to describe the band's use of Storm Thorgerson and Hipgnosis as go-to for the cover arts, these two images would be justified in there. This may be part of JM's recommended rational cleanup.
  • File:Pink Floyd-Animals-Frontal.jpg I have a harder time justifying because "imposing a flying pig over a picture of Battersea Power Station" is really not that hard to envision compared to the above two abstract covers. Yes, there's discussion, but again,like above, how does that make me understand the band immediately? It's perfect on the album page, but not here.
  • I would argue in favor of using the current lead (non-free) image of the band over File:Pinkfloyd.png, because of the fact that at its height of popularity, the band was composed of those five members, and we can never get another free image of that group. The free image is perfectly fine to discuss the later years, but I think it would be doing our readers a disservice if we used the free 4-image collage as the infobox image. Again, the balance in using non-free here. (As a comment, when comparing this to the Beatles lead, which happens to be in the PD due to its publication date, is perhaps the non-free band image possibly free?)
I agree with all other statements JM's made for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Masem. The album covers are suggested as meeting NFCC because the article text itself discusses the album covers. However, I don't think the album covers, barring a few iconic exceptions (like DSOTM), need to even be discussed in this article; they are only tangentially related to the story of the band as a whole. For example, remove the Thorgerson sentence from The Division Bell paragraph, and the reader's understanding of Pink Floyd doesn't diminish at all.
To compare with an exist FA: every Beatles album-cover was iconic, but the article uses only two images of them, one of which they've managed to freely recreate.
I think the infobox band pic should stay.—indopug (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice the mention about the lack of sound files above, and repeat the same "concern". What I've seen of FA band/musician pages is nearly always one or two critically discussed sound files to show the style of the band or its progression in its history, which may or may not duplicate a sound file already used in the album or the song page. Again, like the cover artwork, outright repetition is not called for but I would think this article has the possibility of including a few samples simply because of the band's career. That said, unlike other bands, its very difficult to nail down its sound, and so I can accept the argument that it may be hard to nail down a truly representative sample, though at some point, if we have the choice of numerous representative samples all that could be used equally well with sourcing to back them up, we select one that we think is best represents that band. The "Money" clip is a good one, for example to consider and avoids adding a new NFC audio file. I wouldn't consider the lack of a non-free audio file as stopping this being FA, but it is conspicuously absent. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to not add them and as far as I know they are 100% optional. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and I don't think it's ever come to this yet, but this is just discussion right now - not having NFC sound files when its possible to make and include them could be seen as a violation of FACR#3 about media use. This is just my thoughts and I'm just throwing the idea out because of consistency with previous artist FA, but if every other reviewer cares not that no audio files are present and all FA requirements are met, there you go. --MASEM (t) 00:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is my third FAC on a musical subject and I have never once added a sound file; it was never a problem before. You seem to be saying: "you cant use album images" but "you must use sound files" confusing. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have improved the FURs for the album images used in the article and I believe they are now up to standard. Please correct me if I am mistaken. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Primarily criterion #3. Strange and lop-sided use of non-free media. While the visual aspect of Pink Floyd is overrepresented, the article fails to illustrate what they sounded like (which is arguably the first thing you should know about a band).—indopug (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If ever there was a band which you could not do justice to their sound with samples this is it. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request Clarification from Delegate Are non-free sound files a requirement of FAC to the extent that an oppose based on their exclusion is indeed objectionable? I need some guideance here as this was never an issue before. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion is clear on this. It says, "It has images and other media where appropriate...non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labelled accordingly." The nominator and reviewers should reach a consensus regarding the appropriateness of sound files and to justify the use of non-free content. Graham Colm (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the nominator is getting thrashed unfairly. One reviewer Opposed based on too many non-free images; another reviewer is now opposing based on too few non-free sounds. The FA criteria are a bit vague on this, but my understanding is that The absence of images/sounds from an article should not be a bar to FA status if no free images/sounds are availble. The FA criteria shouldn't require editors to include non-free media in music articles, because that conflicts with WP's goal of providing a free encyclopedia. Non-free media are acceptable, but should not be required. --Noleander (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Opposition based solely on the absence of non-free content will not be taken into consideration when closing. Graham Colm (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to push too much on this - I'm trying to throw out food for thought here - but one thing to consider about NFC is NFCC#8 which has two parts: whether the reader benefits from the inclusion of non-free within the article, and if the omission harms the reader. When we are talking articles on musical groups, there is certainly no doubt that any non-free sample will meet the first part, but often the second is not really the case; a group can be popular without its musical style itself being fairly significant, and thus barring anything else, most sound samples for that band would fail the second half of NFCC#8. Here, however we are talking about Pink Floyd, one of the premiere names in psychedelic/progressive rock, which has a very unique sound. Arguably the section "Musical style" almost begs for a sound sample in that the lack of one to demonstrate their style is failing NFCC#8. Almost. I agree it is not 100% required, and normally I would be "let's avoid adding NFC just because its a musical artist", but that said, we are talking a band that had a distinctive sound.
And to address the above point about penalizing on too many non-free images and not enough non-free audio files, when you consider both together, we're describing what NFC to include to best have the reader understand this article on the band. Some album covers (like Dark Side) certainly help but not all that were originally present. Similarly there is the possibility that some audio may help but they're not there yet to really evaluate. We'd normally work by judging all the non-free content (images and audio and video) as a whole, and, at least as submitted to this FAC, the article was heavily overall with NFC use and possibly unbalanced towards images. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, but I reiterate that opposition based on the absence of non-free content will not be considered. I am concerned that this would set a precedent that goes against the raison d'etre of Wikipedia. With regard to the "distinctive sound", this can be argued. I recall no unique sound or style that unites say "Corporal Clegg", "Grantchester Meadows", "See Emily play", "Us and Them", or "Another Brick in the Wall" and most of "The Final Cut". What many recall, and regard as distinctive is David Gilmour's guitar style. And he wasn't even in the band when I first saw them perform. Having said this – and as a delegate I have probably exceeded my remit – I don't want to see this escalate into a test case. This would be unfair on the nominator. Graham Colm (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Graham, I'm quite surprised by this selective interpretation of WP:FA?. It clearly states "It has images and other media where appropriate" (not necessarily free media only), yet you feel that opposition based on the non-fulfillment of this criterion is not actionable. As you know Pink Floyd has had several musical styles through their history; I think this is all the more reason to have 10-20 second clips from each distinct eras—"See Emily Play" for Syd's psychedilia; something from the proggy DSOTM; one from much later on (3 or so samples in total). This is necessary for somebody to get a very basic understanding of this band and their musical evolution. I can't imagine how an FA about a musician (or group) can be complete without an indication of what they sound like.
In any case, I also strongly oppose the excessive use of images, none (barring the DSOTM cover) of which add anything to the article, as they have little to do Pink Floyd as a whole (the band didn't even design them themselves). Also, if you see the July version of the page, you'll find that not only is it not worse for the lack of album-covers, but that free replacements (see Animals) were used to good effect. I hope at least this part of my opposition is actionable and valid.—indopug (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and never mind about the sound files: not an easily excerptable band. Rothorpe (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Arb break Further to my opposition above about images and media, I'm concerned about whether the article is comprehensive enough.[reply]

  • As I noted above, I think Recognition and influence doesn't deal enough with how they influenced other bands and were a seminal influences on many genres. What we have now is only a handful of artists' names.
I don't see the need for a quote farm from artists explaining why they like Pink Floyd. Seems like fancruft to me. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily from artists, but from critics, explaining how they changed the way people approached music.—indopug (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll dig up a quote farm from critics for you. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this issue is now resolved by my addition of material to the Musicianship section, specifically under Genres, please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks for the great comments. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Musical style appears inadequate too, halfway of it being an unrelated digression about the fact that they composed soundtracks. Many important things about the relevant topic are missed: what was the songwriting dynamic like, what about their hugely influential production techniques, how did the members' individual musicianship contribute (esp. Gilmour's guitar playing), how did their music evolve (esp after Syd's quitting) etc etc.
You are expecting way too much detail for an overview summary article. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If so, why doesn't this logic apply to the Lyrical themes section?
And how are the soundtracks relevant to their musical style?—indopug (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting I delete the soundtrack material? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the songwriting dynamic" is made clear in the article body, there is no need to rehash here, nor should the article be redundant in this regard.
  • "individual musicianship" - covered.
  • "how did their music evolve" - covered. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lyrical themes: on the other hand, this section goes on for a couple of paragraphs too long; a lot of stuff can be moved to individual song and album articles. We should be summarising on themes found throughout their career, so focusing on those found in only a couple of individual songs and albums. (and it reads like "Us and Them" is from The Final Cut)
I like it as it is but thanks for your helpful advice. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Lyrics section is three times as long as the Music section. —indopug (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are several topical articles that already deal with prog rock, art rock, acid rock, space rock, etcetera. There are no articles that detail Floyd's lyrics. Which graphs would you remove and why? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which paragraphs would you trim out and why? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor: World War II → Second World War in BritEng. Discography needn't have the live albums and definitely not low-importance compilations.
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the discography.—indopug (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no reason why I shouldn't include the live albums and compilations, indeed I did so for the recently promoted Paul McCartney, no one complained. This is yet another arbitrary demand and if I thought for one minute that you would actually strike your oppose I would consider your comments more seriously but IME, once an oppose has been cast it typically stays no matter how much effort I put into pleasing the reviewer. Is your goal to block promotion at all costs or to help the nom/article? Because at this point I really cannot tell. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Assume good faith. I want to see this on the main page as much as you but I cannot support if I feel the article doesn't meet WP:FA?.
Anyway, the reason you don't include the compilations and live records is that there is a link to their discog article right there; you thus only need to list their major recordings, i.e. their studio albums. Including the other stuff begs the question about where to stop; "why not add the EPs and singles as well?"—indopug (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be another "random spheres of influence" issue, as I have never heard this before. Can you please point me to the relevant guideline? Also, while I would love to AGF, you have already cast your oppose, so really, IMO, you are approaching this backwards by opposing then making comments. Like I said, I seriously doubt you will strike your oppose no matter what I do at this point, so while I will be happy to resolve any reasonable comments you make for the sake of the article, I am not going to bend over backwards to please an oppose. Would you? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go.—indopug (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks, I've now trimmed out the live and compilation albums. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the July version of the article (before your final push for FAC), I wonder if you haven't trimmed too much of the band's history. For eg: why has essential info like the names of the musicians the band get its name from been shunted to the Notes (which have become really huge)? Also, now there's nothing about how they were viewed as dinosaurs during punk. It also loses a lot in terms of narrative; A Momentary Lapse of Reason now isn't as explicit as before about the fighting between Gilmour and Waters.
The article was over 11,000 words so I cut it to around 9,500-10,000 per FAC requirements. All the info is retained in the notes. I promoted material to do with the origin of the band's name. I don't see the need for more detail on Roger and David fighting, the sources are scant and its not that relevent. The article makes clear the dynamic IMO. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll accept the infighting trim. But are you sure the punk thing shouldn't be there at all?—indopug (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really think the punk thing is not notable. Most bands, if not all bands from the 1960s were dinosaurs in the late 1970s. This was not at all unique to the Floyd. Should I also mention that their relative popularity waned in the wake of hip-hop? Its an undue issue IMO, as I don't think the sentiment was widespread or significant, afterall, Animals sold millions of copies in 1977 and The Wall was a massive commercial success in 1980. So, how outdated could the commercial market have really considered them during the brief punk phase? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As said above, I don't think descriptions of the album cover should be in prose, unless the cover is important in the context of the band's career overall. That happened only once.—indopug (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A personal opinion which I do not share. Why isn't WYWH or The Wall iconic? This is a matter of opinion and you stated that you think evey Beatles album is iconic but really, what's iconic about the Please Please Me cover, With the Beatles or Beatles For Sale? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But those two covers aren't in The Beatles, are they? FWIW, I do think Pink Floyd's album art is quite iconic; but we have a commitment to minimum non-free use, and their absence from the article doesn't significantly hamper readers' understanding of Pink Floyd (NFCC #8).—indopug (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's iconic about the "White Album" cover? The art is needed to convey that the Floyd were groundbreaking and influential in terms of their album art. There are also elements of the absract and the absurd in their art, which tie in well to the lyrical themes. Waters helped design Animals and DSOTM, and the Division Bell cover was inspired by Barrett and Waters absence, another lyrical theme that ties in well with the art. WYWH also ties in with "lyrical themes" and SFOS demostrates the psychedelic era of the band, something that is difficult to convey without visuals. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The White Album cover, due to its simplicity, and therefore a free image, so the metric for inclusion is much much lower. Were all the PF album covers free images, one could conceivably include them all, but then there's taste and aesthetics for the overall article that have to be considered, but that's outside NFC's realm at that point. --MASEM (t) 21:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, remember that we have album articles to go into detail on the album art. Those non-free covers that have a less direct connection between the band's career and the cover art (eg: Animals and WYWH) are probably best left to the album pages, while those where the link between the band's career and the art are inseparable, such as DSOTM, should be kept. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I'm convinced. I removed the Animals and WYWH album images per Masem, Indopug and J Milburn and the Hapash poster per J Milburn. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 08:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok- per the long discussion and careful edits, I'm happy that the non-free content use in this article passes the bar. While there is a lot of non-free content compared to other FAs of its type, it is adding a lot to the article. I'd recommend tying the captions to the text (so, for instance, mentioning the psychadelic nature of the A Saucerful of Secrets cover) as this helps clarify why the covers are actually there. It probably help avoid issues like this in the future from others concerned about NFC issues. J Milburn (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support J Milburn has been trying for years to get that 5-person image removed from the infobox and in every case, the discussions have resulted in the consensus that the existing image is the most appropriate. I'm not going to rehash, again, why that is but the image is not replaceable regardless of what J Milburn wants. If his response to me is to ask "but aren't there free live photos of Pink Floyd" my response is to go back and look at what people said in the several talk threads you started on this topic. In any case, he's clearly biased in this case, as anyone who views the talk archives can see, and his comments regarding that image should be taken with a grain of salt. I do not think it appropriate for him to dismiss Noleander's commentary based on his own personal extremist interpretation of NFCC. I have no comment regarding the album covers, they can go or stay. Otherwise, the article looks good to me. - Balph Eubank ✉ 19:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is bang out of order. I acknowledged when I entered this FAC that previous discussions about this has ended in a different way, and said all along that I would be willing to let that issue drop, as I appreciated that the consensus was against me. I have made my view on the matter clear, but I was never opposing based on that issue- it would be wrong of me to do so. I am very experienced with non-free content issues, and have been performing image reviews here for a long time- my views are most certainly not a "personal extremist interpretation of NFCC", and my comments should not "be taken with a grain of salt". On the other hand, as has been repeatedly demonstrated that Noleander's understanding of the NFC guidelines and policies are severely lacking, not only by myself, but by other editors highly experienced with non-free content issues. Further, a support backed up only with an attack on someone opposing is going to be ignored by any FAC director worth their salt. J Milburn (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The simple fact is that you've tried repeatedly to get that image removed and you tried again in this FAC, though qualifying your statement by mentioning previous consensus. Consensus has been clear for some time, but you still brought it up hoping someone would change their mind. There is a history there that people need to know about and yes, it means your comment regarding that image should be considered taking this history into consideration. I think it's time to stop beating that particular dead horse, please, instead of waiting a few months and then quietly bringing it up again, repeatedly. Thank you. - Balph Eubank ✉ 21:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I am personally content with the presence of the images and the absence of ogg files, the discussion of both of which seems to have swamped this nomination of a particularly fine article. Oculi (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is a dense, detailed article, and there's a few issues for me to bring up once I can set aside time to detail them, but chief among them is the paltry focus on the band's music itself. It's not like this is a topic not frequently covered by secondary sources--pick up a guitar magazine and you're bound to find in-depth articles about the guitarwork of Pink Floyd. As is stands, half of the brief Musical style section is focused on what genres Pink Floyd is labeled and the other half is rattling off soundtrack work they did. There's a little bit more sprinkled throughout the biography portion, but overall there's little detail about what Pink Floyd sounds like, and that is a major failing. The refusal to include soundclips mentioned elsewhere in this FAC doesn't help that aspect of the article. For examples of fully fleshed-out musical style sections in FA-level band articles, I offer the sections I've written for R.E.M., Joy Division, and Nirvana as reference points to guide you. There's a few other issues that stand out (inconsistent coverage of commercial and chart success, notes that veer between trivia and details that really should be in the article body, the still not-completely warranted non-free image of the A Saucerful of Secrets cover), but this is the one that requires the most attention from the article's primary authors at the moment. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WesleyDodds, thanks for taking the time to comment. I will start work resolving your concerns now and as I see these as easy fixes, I should finish in the next couple of hours. I'll post an update when I do. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 22:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Musical style - I've now expanded the section to include some detail on Gilmour's guitar playing per your suggestion. At this point any more about Gilmour there would likely be excessive and more appropriate for David Gilmour.
  • Clarify. As far as what Pink Floyd sounds like, are you suggesting I describe art rock, space rock, acid rock, psychedelic rock etcetera? Can you please be more specific with your suggestion? As a musician of 25+ years I think genres are a fine way to express the sonic qualities of a band that also allows a writer to avoid drifting into fancruft. I think the expanded Musical style section resolves this issue, I am, of course, certainly open to specific suggestions.
  • Per "inconsistent coverage of commercial and chart success", this issue is now resolved.
  • The SFOS art passed two independent image reviews, so I don't think its an actionable objection at this point.
  • As far as your complaint about notes, could you please tell me which you think are trivial and which should be restored to the article body? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - To the best of my knowledge, all actionable objections have now been fully resolved. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mine are not fully resolved yet; I'll add details soon. My objections will be resolved when I list them as such. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've struck my oppose on account of a number of my suggestions being incorporated. A few final suggestions:

  • the new Musicianship section: Film scores has little relevance there; why not just mention chronologically in the appropriate historical section?
I really think the sub-section belongs with their Musicianship, as an aspect of their sonic variety, and not in the timeline. Several points are brought out in regard to the soundtrack material yielding music for their studio albums, so it seemed awkward in the timeline. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the sub-sections Gilmour needs an introductory sentence like "Gilmour's guitar-playing was a key component of the Pink Floyd sound". I also renaming the section to something more specific like "Gilmour's guitar-playing".
Great suggestion. Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sonic experimentation too needs a "Throughout their career, Pink Floyd have experimented with their sound" sentence. This section needs a little more "glue" combining disparate instances of their experimentation.
Great suggestion. Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor: Discography (Album (year)) and Tour (Year: Tour name) are formatted differently. Change the latter to "Tour (year)" for consistency?
Great suggestion. Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor: Shouldn't the first-level history-related sections (eg: "1978–85: Waters-led era") need to come under a overarching History section? It doesn't semantically seem right that "1978–85: Waters-led era" and "Further reading" be at the same level.—indopug (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a bit redundant. From 1963-present is clearly a historical bio, and I don't think there is a need for a redundant header for something that should be self-explanatory to readers. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for striking your oppose Indopug, and for these comments. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - This has been a long, and at times contentious FAC. But I have decided to promote this candidate. I am mindful of the unresolved issues and I would like to see your discussions continued on the article's talk page. I thank the nominator and all the reviewers for their time, effort and constructive criticism. Graham Colm (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference About FAH was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference papers was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference 10.1038/nature01160 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference 10.1016/j.ymeth.2010.06.002 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/October_2012&oldid=992713453"