Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2013

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 10:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shinano was begun as the third ship of the Yamato class, the largest battleships ever built, but was ordered converted into an aircraft carrier after most of the Imperial Japanese Navy's fleet carriers had been sunk during the Battle of Midway in June 1942. The ship was not intended to serve as a ordinary fleet carrier, but rather as a heavily armored support carrier on which aircraft from other carriers could be resupplied, repaired and new aircraft issued. Labor shortages delayed her completion in 1942–43 and a later order to speed up her up completion caused problems with quality control by the largely unskilled workforce. Shinano's shipyard was felt to be vulnerable to Allied attack in late 1944 and she was ordered to sail for a better-defended port to finish fitting out. She was attacked and sunk en route, the largest ship sunk by an American submarine, and the largest warship ever sunk, period. The article had a MilHist A-class review three weeks ago and I believe it is ready for FAC. I've tried to steer a course between too much and too little detail and would appreciate input from non-Ships reviewers on any missing details that need further explanation or vice versa.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note -- Hi Sturm, I know that your other current FAC is probably on the verge of closure but multiple noms are still supposed to be the exception rather than the rule, so pls let a delegate know you'd like to do it before going ahead next time... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments down to 'commissioning and sinking' Now support Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • What's a "support carrier"? It's undefined in the lead.
    • I've deleted that bit from the lede.
  • I've added a whole host of missing commas.
  • "Furthermore, fire-fighting provisions in the hangars were grossly insufficient as they lacked a sprinkler system and any means to isolate sections of the hangars from one another." In Shinano or the older carriers?
    • This isn't made clear by the following sentence that explicitly says that Shinano was designed to eliminate these issues?
      • It is, but not if you're reading like a normal person—I'd put that bit before that information. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When describing the AA guns, you remark on the small magazine size twice, once in a quote.
    • Eliminated the quote.
  • "avgas" = aviation gas?
    • Good catch.
  • You go from fuel tanks straight to "Taihō and Shinano were the only Japanese aircraft carriers with armored flight decks." ?
    • Oops, I totally forgot to detail the thickness of her flight deck armor. I couldn't think of a neat transition to tie into the protection for the avgas, so I split it out into its own, very short paragraph. If anyone else has a good idea how to arrange things for better flow, I'm happy to take suggestions.
  • "but construction was expedited" -> "The builder was unable to increase the number of workers" so was it expedited in actuality, or was this ordered from on high but didn't actually happen? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doing with the last one fresh in my mind. Back with substantive comments hopefully tomorrow or Friday.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • " built for the Imperial Japanese Navy" Shouldn't this be "by" rather than "for"? I see the builder was owned by the IJN.
  • " the ship was heavily modified to act" huh?
  • Ooops, legacy from a recent (incomplete) edit.
  • "Carrying an inexperienced crew coupled with serious design and construction flaws, the ship was not ready for combat" There's a slight mismatch here, it might work better if you began "As it carried an inexperienced crew, and had serious design …"
  • I think the lede should mention also the number of people who died, "including the captain, who went down with the ship".
  • Good idea.
Design etc.
  • "used by her half-sisters" perhaps "used by the earlier Yamato-class battleships". Or if you are going to keep it, move up the half-sister link.
  • Should have had the link there to begin with.
Construction etc.
  • "Even after being put in service," I think this could be safely deleted without loss of meaning.
  • Agreed.
  • "aircraft of the IJN" I think the direct "IJN aircraft" works fine.
  • I am not quite getting this. The ship was not expected to be finished until 1945, originally, but by reducing the construction staff, it would be afloat by 1942? I guess the idea would be to get it afloat, free up the drydock, and finish it somewhere else, but I think a little more explanation is required here.
  • Rephrased it a bit, hopefully to clarify things. See how it reads now.
  • " Despite her enormous size" It may not be apparent to the lay reader why the size is an issue. Is the implication that the size made it unsuitable as a support carrier or more suitable as a combat carrier?
  • Actually I think that the fact that most of her armor had already been installed limited what changes could be economically made to the ship, rather than her size itself. So I've deleted the bit about size.
Flight deck etc.
  • "modeled on that fitted on Taihō, ... Much like the earlier Taiho design" Consistency in rendering of Taiho. I see further issues up ahead with this, please check the whole article.
  • Good catch, done.
  • "Portable canvas wind scoops could also be rigged over the elevator opening to force more air inside." What does the word "portable" add? The sentence already implies they are removable.
  • Indeed it does.
Launching
  • "led to lack of quality control and poor workmanship by the workforce." Is any meaning lost by simply saying "led to poor workmanship"? After all, it's implied it was by the workforce, and lack of quality control tends to result in poor workmanship, as a rule.
  • True.
  • A mention of the anticipated length in time (and distance, perhaps) between Yokosuke and Kure might be useful to the reader.
  • Added.
  • Besides the kamikazes, were planes aboard?
  • Nope, added.
  • Perhaps the location of the sinking should be related to a land point, presumably in Japan.
  • I've added a distance from land, but a geographical point isn't readily available.
Postwar
  • I don't like "Also," and "In addition," beginning consecutive sentences. I would simply delete one or the other, or bury "also" in the sentences.
  • OK.
Excellently done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking this over so closely.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to. Your changes look satisfactory, changing to support.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Don't include quote-terminal ellipses
  • Why include date in Chesneau short cites?
  • Holtzman or Holtzworth?
  • Location for Preston? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • All fixed, Nikki. Thanks for your usual thorough job.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few more for source review

  • Location missing on the Enright book
  • Just placing a note here: the Tully link had me a bit suspicious for a bit, but I see that he's a published author on the subject at hand, so I'm satisfied with its inclusion.
  • ISBNs look good. Ruby 2010/2013 04:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for catching the missing location. You'd think after all the publisher locations that I've requested that people add, I might actually remember to do it for my own articles. I think this is what being hoisted on my own petard feels like.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is an excellent article. I have the following comments and suggestions:

  • Can a simpler term than "civilian photographic technician" be used? (eg, a "government photographer"?) - as a random side note, I really should get around to writing an article on the remarkable 1 November photo recon sortie over the Tokyo region
    • Good idea. What was so special about that recon mission?
      • The single recon B-29 was made the first Allied flight over the Tokyo region since the Doolittle Raid, evaded attacks by hundreds of fighters (most of which were unable to reach its operating altitude), encountered an incredibly rare clear day and took excellent photos of the entire region (who's features were suprisingly little-known to American planners). It was by far the most successful photo recon sortie of the campaign against the Home Islands, and possibly the war. Something for my summer to-do list! Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ships had a designed speed of 27 knots" - is it OK to assume that this carrier would have ended up having the same speed as her battleship half-sisters given the differences in the design?
    • It would certainly be in that ballpark given that nothing changed regarding the ship's propulsion system and hull form. I suppose the real issue would have been if the hull was as deeply immersed as her half-sisters, but even that probably would not have changed much since her displacement was about 90-odd percent of their displacement.
  • The short para starting with "Taihō and Shinano were the only Japanese aircraft carriers with armored flight decks" reads like an aside - could this material be moved into the para on the flight deck?
    • Integrated that into the flight deck section, where it sort of was already. Not real happy with the phrasing so feel free to suggest alternatives.
  • The ordering of the sentences in the para which starts with "The investigation into the loss of Taihō" seems to be around the wrong way: I'd suggest leading in with a description of the cofferdam and then note that this scheme didn't work
    • I've struggled with this paragraph for the longest time; see how it reads now and feel free to make suggestions.
  • Do we know where the carrier's crew were drawn from? Were they survivors of other carriers? (I appreciate that sources on this kind of topic are thin on the ground though)
    • Like you expected, no info in any of my sources.
  • Clay Blair notes in Silent Victory that Enright claimed to have sunk a 28,000 ton "Hayatake class carrier", and encountered scepticism over this as the American code breakers hadn't detected Shinano's construction and were confident that they knew the locations of all the remaining carriers (he was credited with this sinking after he submitted convincing drawings of what he'd seen, and the credit was "upgraded" to Shinano after the war) - is some or all of this worth adding to the article? The interesting thing is that Enright was in the right place at the right time, and wasn't acting on any kind of intelligence. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's probably actually worth adding. Lemme hunt down a copy of Blair and add it. Enright discusses it, but my copy is an .epub with unreliable page numbers and harder to use for cites. Thanks for looking this over so quickly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've just tweaked this so that it flows better (I think) and added some extra details. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2013 (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 10:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

European Storm Petrel[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Behold the chicken of Mother Carey
and also of the Virgin Mary
Sounds like a fairy being sick
eats fish heads from an oily slick
Loved by rebels like Maxim Gorky
but feared by sailors (that's no porky!)

Apologies to lovers of poetry or anyone else with even minimal aesthetic sensibilities. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Forsooth I say of thine
The images are many and fine
Check them I shall,
and for a while
Let us discuss together
This bird of fowl weather

This is under OTRS
Free as a bird, loose as a dress
As for these files four
A license most fair, one I adore
Creative commons, one and all
For us to enjoy and have a ball
But this, and this, is it his own? For sooth,
Even I know not the truth
No EXIF data, so bitty and square
And no resolution to spare
But friend, let us end our song
On a note that can do no wrong
For two more, yours and my
Freedom we cannot deny.

  • It's no good, I can't keep it up, especially as your effort is so much better than my doggerel. Thanks for the image review. I've replaced the medal with an FP of the man himself, the only advantage of the medal was that it showed the bird too. I've taken out the chickpic. I have an out of copyright coloured figure of a stormy's egg, but the quality is too poor, better without unless I can find another source. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There we go, images are a-okay. Prose tomorrow (UTC+7) maybe, as I have to be at work for 7 tomorrow morning. Understand the bit about the bird / medal... shame to lose it. I'll see if Wehwalt (who knows coins quite well can help). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - but no spotchecks for you

  • Because most pages some space do include, footnote 5 without seems terribly crude
  • Duivendijk to Enticott is a same-publisher brother, but one publisher name is not like the other
  • While footnote 10's Cagnon has not one comma but two, footnote 56 is one author too few
  • Though to many the hyphen and dash lack import, I find that Christie's title uses a line that's too short
  • On the other hand, just to finish the song, the lines in Sinclair's ISBN are too long. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose, oh those prose comments

  • Though I understand the fever, of sentences "it" must begin fewer
  • Before this we already took a look, but I swear you should link to Linneus' book
  • Words as words says you shouldn't quote; in italics are words correctly wrote — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I've scythed the its with vim and vigour
Done words-as-words with MoS rigour
Linnaeus now linked to the page and the book
Thank you for comments and taking a look. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Swift and accurate does your cursor fly
On the morrow more comments will arrive
 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should a creature without a human face / be referred to as a whole new race?
  • I note that the chicks fledge only to become eggs / perhaps the order of paragraphs needs new legs?
  • Though the description of chum is rightly disgusting / would not the reader be better served by a link to chumming?
  • Oops, I failed to spot this link, although my description is fuller, I think Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must say, nasal glands may smell quite good / like single-sentence paragraphs never could
  • "the time of the revolution" is good and well / but what year this was you have yet to tell
  •  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1905, I've heard it told/came rushing forth the rebels bold
  • Once again I must declare/ a thank you for your comments fair Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the whole, it is now time, to support / this article, so sublime, best I've read of sort. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!" (apologies to Lewis Carroll) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Aa77zz

The article looks good. I hope that a photographer, on seeing the article, will contribute a photo of the bird feeding (similar to this) and perhaps a recording of the purring sound made by the male birds in the nest holes.

  • I hope so too, it's not an easy subject, a tiny scrap only normally seen at sea Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Do you really need the citation in the first line?
Taxonomy
  • The text: "the morphology is not sufficiently different from that of the nominate subspecies to justify this split" sounds as if this is the opinion of the author - perhaps better as "the morphology is not considered sufficiently different from that of the nominate subspecies to justify a split"
Distribution and habitat
  • Should Northern Hemisphere have caps? I'm not sure. The wiki article does this may not be a good guide.
Feeding
  • The article has "although individuals will sometimes dive for food to a depth of not more than 0.5 m (18 in)." and cites Flood et al 2009. There is a more recent article on the melitensis subspecies that claims that the birds dive to depths of up to 5 meters: Albores‐Barajasa, Y V; Riccatoa, F; Fiorinb, R; Massac, B; Torricellia, P; Soldatinia, C (2011). "Diet and diving behaviour of European Storm Petrels Hydrobates pelagicus in the Mediterranean (ssp. melitensis)". Bird Study. 58 (2): 208–212. doi:10.1080/00063657.2011.560244. (Also available here). The publication by Mante and Debize (2012) which is cited elsewhere in the wiki article, also mentions 5 meters but doesn't give a source. I've found another publication that mention diving: Griffiths, A M (1981). "European Storm-petrels Hydrobates pelagicus feeding by diving off South Africa" (PDF). Cormorant. 9 (1): 47.. It reports that the birds dived to around 30cm. The wiki article on the Band-rumped Storm Petrel also mentions diving. I have doubts about the 5m depth - it could easily be faulty depth gauges - but perhaps the paper should be mentioned in this article.
  • Having seen these birds, I was surprised to discover that they can dive at all. Flood is supported by photos and videos. I find the Mediterranean results difficult to believe, but you are right, they need mentioning. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The oil, rich in vitamin A, is produced by a large gland in the stomach.[43]" The source: Turner et al. (2012) p. 307. doesn't look good. I cannot see page 307 but page 308 of the 4th edition here has "Although diving petrels (Pelecanoides) have the nostrils beak and stomach glands that are characteristic of tubenoses..." (no Vit A) A more specialized source on the physiology would be better. Does HBW have an article that mentions the physiology of Procellariiformes? Or perhaps one of the books cited in the Procellariiformes article - or Warham, John (1990). The Petrels: Their Ecology and Breeding Systems. London: Academic Press. ISBN 9780127354200. (I haven't checked these)
Predators and parasites
  • Concise BWP doesn't say that either, sourced to Leon et al and modified to say what they found Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cited texts
  • Turner 2012. The isbn points to the 4th edition published in 2013. The authors are George Karleskint, Jr.; Richard L Turner; James W Small. ie Turner is the second author. The edition should be specified.

I may have more later. Aa77zz (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for review so far , comments, and for formatting the journals so helpfully Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The article is comprehensive, well organised and the sources are appropriate. I've made a few small copy edits. I suspect there are still places in the article where the prose could be more polished but I'm not skilled enough to help with this. Aa77zz (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for support and tweaking the refs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are two recognised subspecies. The North Atlantic nominate subspecies, H. p. pelagicus, and the Mediterranean H. p. melitensis (Schembri, 1843). - the second of these is not a sentence as it lacks a verb - I guess you could use a dash to join them or rephrase....
  • I think this is something that crept in late, replaced full stop with comma now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]
The Storm Petrel breeds on exposed and uninhabited islands which it visits only to breed and always at night - ungainly and needs some rewording. An alternative isn't jumping out at me yet....
  • the second "breed" is redundant, already said they are breeding islands, now which it visits only at night. It otherwise frequents... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]
I think I'd link bracken...
Comments from Quadell

It's a great lead. The article is well-organized, and the prose is very good. It actually has a valuable "in culture" section, which you don't see every day. The sourcing is excellent, as usual. I have just a few recommendations regarding grammar, but they're not clearly errors.

  • Consider using commas to split adjectives, as in "a fluttering, bat-like flight".
  • I think "with Halipeurus pelagicus occurring at much higher densities" would be better than "Halipeurus pelagicus occurring at much higher densities".

Still, the quality is quite high, and I'm left without much to do as a review. Support. – Quadell (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added commas where they seem appropriate and followed your parasite recommendation. Thanks for review, comments and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from User Snowmanradio
  • I have got a paperback version of Collins Bird Guide, also 1999, and the storm petrel page is 24. The isbn in the article is that of the hardback and the pages are given as 74 to 75. Is there this much difference between the paperback and hardback? Snowman (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, my error. I put the date of the first edition, now corrected to the 2009 second edition that I actually used. The page numbers are significantly different because the second edition uses a revised taxonomic sequence that starts with Anseriformes and Galliformes, effectively pushing all the other orders about 50 pages further back Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference in the description of range map on Commons also needs clarification. Snowman (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mother Carey" is a term in the Oxford English Dictionary and the definition also explains her chickens. Apparently, the term is used for storm petrels in general and not just the European Storm Petrel species. Also, see an illustration from The Encyclopedia Americana 1920 on Commons showing a Mother Carey's chicken (presumably an American one); see File:Americana 1920 Birds.jpg. Snowman (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a footnote and ref to indicate term has been transferred to other petrels Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first mention or Mother Careys Chickens in the OED is in 1767 in a quote from John Hawkesworth in a work about voyages to the South Seas, so this may not refer to the European Storm Petrol only. The OED says that it is a UK and USA term. The OED included quotes by Mark Twain and Herman Melville using the term. I think that the links of Mother Carey's chickens to one species of storm petrol needs double checking. I note that Linnaeus scientifically described the European Storm Petrel in 1758. Snowman (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The actual text by Hawkesworth (recorded 1767 published 1773) is here. When near the Strait of Magellan he writes: "we saw also a great many pintado birds of nearly the same size which are prettily spotted with black and white and constantly on the wing though they frequently appear as if they were walking upon the water like the peterels to which sailors have given the name of Mother Carey's chickens and we saw also many of these." Aa77zz (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aa77zz, thanks for link. @snowman. Well, I've already added the note to say that the term is used for other storm petrels, I would have thought that was sufficient. Non-ornithologists often treated similar species such as the European and Wilson's Storm Petrels as effectively the same, just like people refer to "gulls" rather than Black-headed Gull etc. When I was researching this, I had to take some care to exclude US sources which just said Storm Petrel when they could only have been referring to Wilson's. Same with Mother Carey's Chickens. While the Pintado is very distinctive, the description only says it feeds like Mother Carey's Chicken. Turning to the quote and we saw also many of these, I don't know that 18th-century sailors would have distinguished the various white-rumped storm petrels, they are tricky enough even when you know what you are looking for. I've already said that Linnaeus described the European species in para 2 of taxonomy, not sure what you are getting at there. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expect that 18th-centruay sailors would not have been able to identify individual species, so surely the term "Mother Carey' chickens was for any sort of storm petrel, and this is the primary meaning of the term. I think that the footnote is not adequate, and I think that this should be in the main text and explained properly. Snowman (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move comment into main text. The use of this term must obviously pre-date Hawkesworth for it to make sense to his readers, and it's overwhelmingly likely that the term applied originally to the British bird and expanded to other white-rumped species because their similarity meant that they were assumed to be the same bird. Now, that's OR, but so is your claim that it was first applied to all storm petrels. Unless you can reference your claim, I can't see that we can do more than state the fact Jimfbleak - talk to me?
  • I have not got access to the Chambers dictionary, but I would have thought that the OED would be better as a reference. The OED has a list of quotes for the use of the "Mother Carey" going back to 1767 and it seems that the oldest quote links the term to seabirds in the South Seas. How far does the Chambers dictionary go back? Snowman (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chambers doesn't give first uses. I'm happy it to be reffed to OED, but I can't do it myself because I don't have access to it. Although the first surviving written record is 1767, it's obvious even from that quote that the term was in general use earlier. He wrote "Mother Carey's chickens" expecting his readers to know the term. The fact that the first written record was in the southern oceans obviously doesn't imply that the term originated there, which would be extremely unlikely. If this is a sticking point as well as Gorky, I might as well remove the whole of the "In Culture" section to try to move this FAC along Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is going to be difficult to write an account of the use of these terms as they were used before the terms were written down. There is evidence that the European Storm Petrel was called Stormy Petrel and Mother Carey's Chicken, because these are names provided in Francis Orpen Morris', A History of British Birds, volume 6, however this was published in the 1850s. It might be possible to write a brief account of the use of these terms after 1767, but not before. Snowman (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely the most appropriate place for the history of the term is at the Mother Carey's chickens article? I don't see that as particularly relevant to this page, we already have an RS source that the term applies to this species, and I've accepted that it may be applied to similar species too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to OED and added date of first recorded use 13:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Does the bird's sense of smell enable it to find food besides finding fish offal dumped by ships? Snowman (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC) 08:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a footnote and ref to indicate that offal and oily food often found by smell Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... but this sounds like important behavior and not something to be put out of the way in a footnote towards the bottom of the page. Snowman (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: Levin, Dan (25 June 1965). "Stormy petrel: the life and work of Maxim Gorky". Time Magazine. Appleton-Century. Subscription needed. The link looks like it is to a Time Magazine book review with the webpage heading "Books: A Legend Exhumed". I am not sure if the source is the book or the review. Snowman (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is worth double checking, because the largely unreferenced Wiki article of the book The Song of the Stormy Petrel has translated the Russian text and also has a section specifically what bird it might be. Apparently, it does not apply to one species of storm petrol. Snowman (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you are right that the Russian word doesn't refer to a specific seabird species, and Gorky wasn't an ornithologist. What I've said is that the poem is translated into English as Stormy Petrel, and similarly for Gorky's nickname. This is clearly the case, and the various non-Russian anarchist groups took their names from the English version. It's obviously the European species that's intended in the English versions, why would European anarchists want to refer to any other species? "Who killed Cock Robin?" doesn't specify European Robin and House Sparrow, but those are clearly the intended species. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The article should be clearer than that. It should say that the English version is a misinterpretation of the Russian, if that is what has happened. I think that the article is currently misleading. Snowman (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a clause that it may not be an accurate translation of the Russian (although I can't find any English-language text that gives a different version) 14:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... but you have not included the nitty gritty that the term used in the Russian poem was a far more general word for a type of a seabird. Snowman (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • according to an unreferenced claim in a Wikipedia article, doubly unreliable. Even Google translate (and another machine translation I tried" gave "Песня о Буревестнике" as "Song of the Storm Petrel", and also translated the last word on its own as "Storm Petrel". I've said that the translation may not be accurate, I don't speak Russian, and I can't find another translation. This article is about a bird, not Russian literature, and I'm unwilling to waste more time on an unsourced claim that's irrelevant to the fact that this is how it's always translated in English. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am disappointed that you see looking in to this further as wasted time. I think that this is worth spending more time on this to get it right. The Russian Wiki article on the European Storm Petrel is ru:Прямохвостая_качурка. When I put in "ru:Буревестник" (without the e at the end) in the Russian Wiki it redirected to ru:Буревестниковые (English: Procellariidae). I think that there is some truth in that the translation of "Буревестнике" from the Russian is a general name of a type of seabird in English, probably a Procellariidae. I really do not know why you expect the on-line translators to be accurate on translating these sort of technical terms. I know this is an article mainly about a bird with only a little on Russian literature; nevertheless, I think that this article should not include an error in translation. Snowman (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Russian Wikipedia is not RS. I can't access one of the references, and the other is dead. I don't understand what you mean by an error in translation. Are you saying we shouldn't mention the Gorky poem or nickname, or any of the anarchist groups because it should have been "The Song of the Procellaridae"? The fact is, mistranslation or not, in English it's always translated as "Storm Petrel" in the Gorky/anarchist context, and it's clear that all the many books and commentaries take it as Hydrobates. I don't see any mileage in delving into what it should have been translated as, particularly without an RS source, the interest is in what it is actually translated as. And ornithologists like Mark Cocker put in under the Storm Petrel heading in his book, so it's not just the experts on Russian literature and politics. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The en Wiki article on storm petrels, the ru Wiki, and Google translator all say that petrol is a general word for a seabird probably meaning any one bird of the storm petrel family. These three sources may not be RS on the Wiki, but the fact that they are all the same would indicate double checking of the translation is needed. (Petrel and Storm Petrel in English both translate to Буревестник on the google translator]). These three sources all say that Буревестник (with or without e on the end) can mean a storm petrol in general and not an individual species. As far as I understand it, the Euorpean Storm Petrol is not seen in Russia, so I am puzzled why an Russian author who did not know much about ornithology would write about it. Snowman (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No other petrel or other Procellaridae species breeds in European Russia either, since it doesn't have an oceanic coast. I suspect that Gorky probably didn't have a particular petrel in mind, or even necessarily visualised a petrel, but I don't claim to know what was in the mind of a long-dead poet. Whatever he thought in 1915, the translators have all translated it as the species that they would have expected, the Storm(y) Petrel, not Wilson's Petrel or any other petrel, and I doubt that non-ornithologist translators would have had Hydrobatidae in mind as they worked, rather than the common European species. We have an RS ornithological source (Cocker) which places this under the species, not the family, whereas you seem to be suggesting that I replace all the referenced facts regarding Gorky with your opinions and original research. I'm not going to change the general thrust of that section, so if you think it's important enough to oppose, that's up to you. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have invited an editor, who wrote the current version of this topic on the storm petrel Wiki article, to advance the discussion here. Snowman (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the meaning of burevestnik (invariably translated as "storm petrel") in Gorky's Song. I have added a reference to the period's standard Russian dictionary (Vladimir Dal's Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language) to the article, and have copied the relevant dictionary entry to Talk:The Song of the Stormy Petrel. Basically, burevestnik or bird of storm was (and I believe still is) a generic name for the Procellariidae in Russian. The European Storm Petrel, specifically known in Russian as kachurka, was given as one of the four examples of the burevestnik species in the dictionary, along with the Wandering Albatross etc. As of 1901, when Gorky wrote the Song, he had not yet spent any time outside of the interior of Russia (his Capri period was not to start until a few years later), and probably had never encounter any sea birds in real life, or had any particular knowledge of any Procellariidae species. Obviously his use of the image was highly symbolic, so it was entirely appropriate for Gorky's translators to pay more attention to the name of the bird (literally, "a Messenger of the Storm") than to the underlying ornithological reference, and to use "storm petrel" or "stormy petrel" as a translation. I doubt any translators were concerned about the actual biological nomenclature in use!
When Russian artists depict Gorky's bird on various monuments, plaques, illustrations to Gorky's works, etc, it basically looks like a large seagull in flight. A Russian author of Gorky's time writing about a sea voyage certainly could call a European Storm Petrel a burevestnik, but he also could use the term with respect to any number of other related sea birds.
Incidentally, Gorky's other famous "song" of the period, has a Grass Snake [in Russian, Uzh - a generic name for a group of non-poisonous snakes] and a Falcon as protagonists. -- Vmenkov (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I think it's pretty clear that the use was metaphorical rather than ornithological, but your additions give more examples and clarify the Russian. I think the stumbling block is that Snowman does not accept that the metaphorical use is appropriate unless it can be pinned down to an ornithological entity (apologies if that's a misrepresentation), and that he doesn't think that this is the entity. I suspect that despite the extra info that disagreement will not be resolved Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not jump to conclusions about why I think the article needs amendments. I am aware that you have apologies in advance and now I would be grateful of you would please withdrawn that suggestion that I was aiming for a wholly ornithological translation. My aim here is to improve the article and we can be expected to be pulling in the same direction. I am concerned that the nature of the translation is not well represented in the Wiki article. I am aware that the translation is probably largely metaphorical and also I guess that it might also be a bit of an Anglicization to a species known well by English speaking people. Snowman (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to withdraw the suggestion, although I don't think I was suggesting that you didn't realise that it was a metaphor, rather that you didn't seem to think it applied to this species (and in the Russian original it clearly didn't refer to any species). I've posted on your talk page offering to remove the last three paragraphs, since I can't see any other way forward on this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking about the paragraph on Gorgy, but I have not begun to analyze the other two short paragraphs at the end of the "Culture" section. With regards the Gorgy paragraph, I think that there are many ways forward to explain the nature of the translation from Russian better. Snowman (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The last two paragraphs depend on the connection to Gorky, so if he goes, they need to go too. If you think the Gorky stuff can be kept with rewording, please amend as you see fit. We've spend eight days on Mother Carey and Gorky, and at least from my viewpoint seem to be making little progress. That's why I've offered to remove the Gorky/anarchist paras or the whole of the section to try to move this along. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the discussion here has significantly advanced over the last eight days with regard to Gorgy's poem and Mother Carey's Chicken. I think that it is likely that improvements in the article will follow. Snowman (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Snowman (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I think that the book review probably is not a RS for the Wiki. It includes the term "Hemingway with Heartburn.", which sounds like a subjective statement to me. The heading for the review includes "Stormy Petrel", which is not the same as "Storm Petrel". Snowman (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is variously believed ...": Why not say; "It is believed ..."? Actually, the OED says that the origin of Mother Carey is uncertain but makes some suggestions, so I wonder what degree of certitude should be used. It is extremely difficult when sources do not give the same account, if that is what is happening here. Snowman (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed "variously" and made a couple of other minor changes. The three explanations seem much the same to me; Cocker references Lockwood as his source, and Lockwood would have been familiar with Brewer (both use the obscure term "noa"), OED uses Brewer, so they are all singing from the same hymnbook Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... as disparate as a Roman tribune,[71]". Excuse me, I do not know much about Roman tribune. I found out that this is from Ancient Roman times according to the linked Wiki page. If this is correct, then the old use could be made clearer. Snowman (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional impression. Support. I have focused on the culture section. I edit bird articles and I have edited this article mainly during the FAC, so some may say that I have a conflict of interest; however, I have tried my best to be objective. There may be a few rather minor clarifications to sort out that could be resolved before or after the FA status award, nevertheless, I would support FA status. Snowman (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User J Milburn

Really nice article, very well written. Just a few quick thoughts:

  • "trill" is a bit jargony.
  • Really? I can't think of a more appropriate word, but I've linked to trill (music) and added a gloss. If you think that's OTT, feel free to remove one or the other. FWIW, in youf-talk "please be trill" means true+real (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a thought with the Distribution section; you say that it breeds uninhabited islands, but also mention a colony on an inhabited island. (You also mention that they nest in/under buildings.) There's a similar issue with how you mention that it's seen from land only in Autumn storms, but then mention that it's routinely seen from land in parts of Africa.
  • Added "usually". Obviously it's man's rats and cats that prevent colonies surviving on most inhabited islands. Of course there are islands with buildings that are no longer inhabited, like St Kilda, so the presence of buildings isn't necessarily a contradiction. I thought that Africa bit might be a problem. I didn't see any proper seabirds in a November week on the Gambia coast a few years back, and I suspect that Barlow meant "in appropriate weather", but he doesn't actually say that. I began the sentence with "in Europe... " for precisely that reason Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • European Storm Petrels certainly breed on inhabited islands. One of the largest breeding colonies (perhaps the largest) is on the island of Nólsoy (pop. 253) in the Faroes. See here. Aa77zz (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I'd completely missed this comment. I think the change to "usually" above covers that, since the majority of colonies, irrespective of size are on inhabited islands Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Artificial nests are readily used" What's an artificial nest? If you mean human-made, this seems to go against the claim that they "less commonly nest in walls, under buildings".
  • Walls and buildings are likely to have relatively few suitable crevices, and obviously the petrels can't dig in stone, it's not an aversion to man-made as such. I've made it clear that the artificial nests are plastic tubes, which basically present the petrel with an effort-free perfect home. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel you could say a little more about the association with storms; in what way are they associated with storms? What's the biology of this?
  • I found a source that explained why they appear in rougher weather, basically it's harder to fly when there is no wind. (OR follows) I went on two boat trips in August and September, in very un-British warm, calm weather. Despite chumming, the Penzance trip produced just one stormie, and the Bridlington boat had no storm petrels or shearwaters Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On web-searching for "lee of ships" combined with "storm petrel" several pages pop up explaining that storm petrels shelter in the lee of ships in bad weather at sea. I am not sure if any of these are RS nor if any specifically mention the European Storm Petrel, but I think that this is likely to be worth following up to see if there is anything relevant that can be added to the article. Snowman (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've not taken a look at the sources, but, that aside, this looks excellent. I particularly enjoyed the section on superstition. J Milburn (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, provided a source check comes back OK. The prose is excellent, and this does seem to be comprehensive. J Milburn (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image license query

The license for the image of a Great Skua has already been approved above - but I have doubts. The photograph appears not to have been taken by the uploader as the source is given as "With permission from: Murray Nurse, Guildford , England". My understanding is that in such cases an OTRS certificate is required. Aa77zz (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with an Eleanora's Falcon that does have an OTRS Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


A smile to my face these rhyming fools
Do bring, for they have all the tools
To craft a dandy FAC
That fairly cries, "Promote me!"

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 10:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Operation Tungsten[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Tungsten was the first, and most successful, of a series of British aircraft carrier raids on the German battleship Tirpitz between April and August 1944. It was a major undertaking, and involved six aircraft carriers and a powerful force of over 120 dive bombers and fighters. The attack killed or wounded about 15% of the battleship's crew, but did not cause major damage.

I've completely redeveloped this article since January, and it passed a GA assessment in August and a military history Wikiproject A-class review on 8 September. It has since been further expanded and copy edited and I'm hopeful that it meets the FA criteria. I'd also like to acknowledge Manxruler's generous donation of photos of the graves of the British airmen killed in the operation. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in how you format multi-author works
  • Is Hinsley 1984 or 1988?
  • "Naval Instute Press"? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • All fixed - thanks Nikki Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query "Overall, 122 sailors were killed and a further 316 wounded; these casualties represented 15 per cent of the battleship's crew" The crew was a little over 2,000 so this would have been more than 20% of them. Would you mind checking your sources, is it possible that you mean "Overall, 122 Germans were killed and a further 316 wounded; these casualties included 15 per cent of the battleship's crew". ϢereSpielChequers 20:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's what the source says. Bear in mind that the size of the crew fluctuated quite a bit over time - the extra anti-aircraft guns lead to overall growth in crew size during the ship's career, but crewmen were also sent on leave during periods where she wasn't fit to put to sea. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for checking, yes of course we can't go beyond the sources, even if as in this case they seem anomalous. ϢereSpielChequers 14:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment - Although well-written, illustrated, and referenced, information about the actual composition and execution of the airstrike is minimal in comparison to supporting information on background and subsequent developments. Focus might be improved by tabular orders of battle for the Allies only - German forces appear insufficiently complex to require such description. Tabular information might include the number of each type of aircraft on each of the various carriers and squadrons and their distribution into defensive cover as well as the airstrike targets with launch and recovery sequence times to summarize and clarify existing descriptive text.Thewellman (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those comments. I agree that order of battle information would be useful, and as this is a bit complex (and long-winded), I've started a separate Allied order of battle for Operation Tungsten article. I've fleshed out the material on the strikes as well, but there actually isn't all much that can be said about them - each only lasted for about 60 seconds! I've also added some extra details on the timing of the flying programs which I hope addresses your final comment. Nick-D (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The information presented in the order of battle article is good, but doesn't really address the issue of weighting in this article. The listing of escort carrier fighters as suggested by Sturmvogel 66 is an improvement, but there is remaining ambiguity about the squadrons involved in comparison to the detail of the bomber assignments. This table summarizes the situation:

Operation Tungsten airstrike[edit]

Force Carrier Squadron Aircraft Quantity Mission Launch Recovery Notes
1 Victorious 827 Sqn Barracuda 12 bomb Tirpitz 0415 0642
1 Victorious 829 Sqn Barracuda 8 bomb Tirpitz 0525 0758 1 crashed during launch
1 Victorious 1834 & 1836 Sqns Corsair 10 air strike top cover 0415 0642
1 Victorious 1834 & 1836 Sqns Corsair 10 air strike top cover 0525 0758 1 crash landed
2 Furious 801 Sqn Seafire 9 Home Fleet top cover
2 Furious 880 Sqn Seafire 9 Home Fleet top cover
2 Furious 830 Sqn Barracuda 9 bomb Tirpitz 0415 0642 1 lost during attack
2 Furious 831 Sqn Barracuda 12 bomb Tirpitz 0525 0758
2 Emperor 800 Sqn Hellcat 10 strafing coastal anti-aircraft guns 0415 0642
2 Emperor 804 Sqn Hellcat 10 strafing coastal anti-aircraft guns 0525 0758 1 ditched following mission
2 Fencer 842 Sqn Swordfish 9 anti-submarine patrols
2 Fencer 842 Sqn Wildcat 7 Home Fleet top cover
2 Pursuer 881 Sqn Wildcat 10 strafing Tirpitz anti-aircraft guns 0415 0642
2 Pursuer 896 Sqn Wildcat 10 strafing Tirpitz anti-aircraft guns 0525 0758
2 Searcher 882 Sqn Wildcat 10 strafing Tirpitz anti-aircraft guns 0415 0642
2 Searcher 898 Sqn Wildcat 10 strafing Tirpitz anti-aircraft guns 0525 0758
I assume the escort carrier fighter launches would have been on a squadron basis, but the article doesn't mention which squadrons were assigned to the first and second strikes. Corsair squadron assignments are similarly missing. It appears 842 Squadron aboard Fencer was not involved in the strike and probably provided ASW patrols around the carrier force during the raid. Can this be confirmed? The Seafires aboard Furious are similarly missing from the strike aircraft. Were they retained for defense of the carriers from aerial attack? Are times available for the launch and recovery cycle of these protective patrols?Thewellman (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pretty easy to assign squadrons to each air strike by take off times. Fencer's Wildcats and Furious' Seafires provided CAP, although I don't know why times for these aircraft are important. I think that the article already incorporates the minimum necessary information on the composition of the strikes, but I wouldn't object if Nick wants to expand the coverage by adding which squadrons flew on which strike. BTW, why do you have question marks after some of the squadrons? The designations are correct, according to Brown.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question marks appeared where I hadn't been able to determine whether the squadron participated in the 1st or 2nd strike, so the launch and recovery times may be inappropriate. I don't dispute the article contains the minimum necessary information about the airstrike, but that minimum may not provide an appropriate weight of information about Operation Tungsten in comparison to supporting information on background and subsequent developments. Since Nick indicated there wasn't much information available about the 60-second airstrike, I suggest description of the asset allocation might be an appropriate means of improving the focus of this article on Operation Tungsten as opposed to a history of Royal Navy operations against Tirpitz. Focus might be improved by answering questions like: Which Barracuda squadrons carried the various types of bombs? Of the various fighters available, why were the Corsairs assigned to provide top cover for the raid? Was it squadron pilot experience or aircraft features like greater endurance, rate of climb to gain position following the low-level approach, or air-to-air combat performance in comparison to the other available aircraft? Timing of the carrier force CAP and ASW launch and recovery cycle might improve understanding of the air operations through the raid. Thewellman (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you only have partial take off/landing times by squadron? The information in the table for those squadrons is your best guess. You make some good points, but the information that you want may not be available.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestions Thewellman. I've just added material which identifies the fighter units involved in each strike (the Corsairs don't seem to have operated in separate squadrons), as well as a short para on the aircraft which were retained over the fleet and some extra material on the attacks. I don't really like the idea of adding further details of the carriers' flying program to the article - this is not likely to be of wide interest to readers, and details on it aren't included as part of any of the narrative accounts of the operation. While the Tactical, Torpedo and Staff Duties Division (Historical Section) report provides details of the flying program in a (somewhat confusing) appendix, the fact that a wartime report written for a professional audience didn't judge this worth including in its main text provides solid ground, I think, for also not including it in this article. I'm afraid that none of the sources indicates why the Corsairs were selected for top-cover duties; my guess is that these aircraft were either judged to be better suited to the role, or the fact that they couldn't be operated off the escort carriers meant that only a smallish number were available. Nick-D (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to dig out the information to expand the airstrike description, Nick. If I have appropriately updated the above table to match the information presented in this article and the Order of Battle article, I suggest the mention of 800 Squadron in the 7th paragraph of the Attack section might be checked to see if the reference should be to 804 Squadron. In the same paragraph, I wonder if the apostrophe is needed after "898 Naval Air Squadrons". Thewellman (talk) 05:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source I was relying on (Brown 1977) actually says 800 squadron, but this can't be right given that the nominal roll in the Tactical, Torpedo and Staff Duties Division (Historical Section) report names 10 Hellcat pilots as participating in each strike (but not the units for some reason), and each squadron only had 10 aircraft so both must have been involved. I've found a good source through Google Books which confirms that 804 Sqn took part in the second strike and added this - thanks for spotting the problem! I've also fixed that rouge apostrophe. Nick-D (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done! Thewellman (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your comments - the article is much stronger as a result of them. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments:

  • the images seem appropriately licenced to me;
  • one duplicate link identified: "Artic convoys of World War II";
  • "The decision to strike Kaafjord was motivated..." --> "The British decision to strike Kaafjord was motivated..."?
  • "Tirpitz had an important influence on British naval strategy during World War II" --> "The threat Tirpitz posed had an important influence on British naval strategy during World War II..."?
    • That really helps that para - thanks Nick-D (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • what year was this: "On the night of 10/11 February, 15 Soviet aircraft attacked the battleship, but did not cause any damage." 1944?
  • "During the period the ship was under repair, Scharnhorst, the only remaining operational German battleship, was..." --> "During the period the ship was under repair, Scharnhorst, the only other operational German battleship, was..."?
    • I chose that wording as Tirpitz wasn't operational at this time (which is why Scharnhorst put to sea with only an inadequate destroyer escort, and was overwhelmed by the Home Fleet) Nick-D (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • perhaps add a link to Fighter aircraft and Fleet Air Arm?
  • "lacked a bomb capable of penetrating battleships' thick deck armour..." --> "lacked a bomb capable of penetrating a battleship's thick deck armour..."?
  • "would be able to pierce at least the first of Tirpitz's layers of armour..." --> "would be able to pierce at least the first layer of Tirpitz's armour..."?\
  • spelling: "Tromso Cemetary" --> ""Tromso Cemetery". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. Thanks very much for these comments Nick-D (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries, your changes look good. I've added my support. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • A couple of minor points:
      • This is a little repetitive: "...Victorious would provide protection against German aircraft and Grumman F4F Wildcat and Grumman F6F Hellcats operating from Furious..." Specifically "Grumman" twice. Consider instead: "Victorious would provide protection against German aircraft and Grumman F4F Wildcats and F6F Hellcats operating from Furious."
      • Also repetitive prose here: "With these two options unavailable, the task was assigned to the Home Fleet's aircraft carriers.[10] At this time the large fleet carriers HMS Furious and Victorious and four smaller escort carriers were available." (unavailable and available - perhaps reword one)
      • References out of chronological order here: "One of 830 Squadron's Barracudas crashed following the attack with the loss of all three members of its crew. The surviving aircraft of the first wave began landing on the carriers at 6:19 am, and all were recovered by 6:42."[55][51] I.e. ref 55 before 51 (minor nitpick only).
    • Spotchecked a couple of sources:
      • FN 32 - "Operation Tungsten — Attacking the Tirpitz, 1944". Navy Today (160). April 2011. Retrieved 28 January 2013. (Ref spts text with no issues of copyright violation or close paraphrase detected.)
      • FN 73 - "Tromso Cemetery". Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Retrieved 20 September 2013. (Ref spts text with no issues of copyright violation or close paraphrase detected.) Anotherclown (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks very much for your review Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. (Btw, I'm giving up on recommending "that" over "which" for all nonrestrictive clauses ... this use is somewhat popular on Wikipedia, especially in Milhist articles, and is even championed at the M-W website ... but other caveats on "which" still apply.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • flown off an aircraft carrier assigned to the convoy Which carrier?
    • Victorious - I've just added this. Nick-D (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allies had to assign a powerful force of warships to the British Home Fleet Might this be better phrased as "keep" a powerful force of warships "with"? since Home Fleet was the main RN command for the UK?
    • I'm not sure about that. The deployments of individual British capital ships were surprisingly fluid until about 1944, and the Home Fleet also served as the de-facto reserve force for other theatres (eg, ships were drawn from it to reinforce the Mediterranean Fleets at various times, and it was tapped for ventures distant from the North Sea such as the invasions of North Africa and Madagascar), so I think that "assigned" better captures this. It's much of a muchness though and I see your point. Nick-D (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't tabulated RN BB/CV deployments past Husky, but I expect that they kept at least one BB and CV each in Home Fleet pretty much all the time after Tirpitz became operational. Of course, many times these ships were working up in preparation for other deployments, but they could have been used against her if she'd sortied forth.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've just made this tweak: on reflection , "keep" is superior as it fits in with scarce ships being tied down in what would have otherwise have been an unimportant area for them. Nick-D (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provide metric conversions for all English weights. If using the conversion template, remember to add the |adj=on code to hyphenate the weight of the bomb.
    • I've deliberately not done this for the bomb weights as these are - as I understand it - typically generic names for the weapons based around their approximate unfused weight rather than their literal weights. By the time fuses, fins, etc, are added the weight often ends up being quite different. Please let me know if I've got this wrong though! Nick-D (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I convert them anyways, even though I know the weights are really just nominal. I just know that if I didn't somebody would query why.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, done for this first time it appears (I haven't done this in previous FAs where it's been raised, but the weight of the bombs is an issue in this article given that this had an important influence on their effectiveness). Nick-D (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyphenate high speed
  • While I understand the details are in the separate OB article, can you list the numbers of each type of aircraft in the attack, including those on the escort carriers?
    • Done - thanks for suggesting this. While it needed a surprising amount of detective work to put this together from different sources, it was clearly needed. The underlying problem is that the main source historians have drawn on - the post-battle analysis by the RN's Tactical, Torpedo and Staff Duties Division, is never really clear about the order of battle, and contradicts itself on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fighter unit defending Kaafjord was from Jagdgeschwader 5. I believe that Werner Girbig's unit history has been recently translated and might have some information on the Luftwaffe's failure to respond. I think that a group commander was relieved over the issue, although I'm not certain if it was over this attack in particular. I also believe that Eric Mombeek's multi-volume history of JG 5 in German also might cover this, although I'm not certain which volume the details would appear in. Volume 4 looks likely, though.
    • Can you suggest the names of these references? I might have trouble accessing them quickly here in Australia though :) Given that the Luftwaffe didn't play any role in the operation (or any of the later aerial attacks on the ship) hopefully this isn't a barrier to the article's promotion. Nick-D (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jagdgeschwader 5: The Luftwaffe's JG 5 Eismeerjager in World War II ISBN 978-0764342721 and Eismeerjäger: Zur Geschichte des Jagdgeschwaders 5 ISBN 978-2-930546-02-5. The Girbig might be possible to get in Australia, but I really don't think that there's a copy of Mombeek in a library's hands Down Under and there may well be no copies in Worldcat outside Germany. I only have copies of the first two volumes myself. While nice to have, I don't think that it's essential since the Luftwaffe's fighters didn't respond at all. That's not necessarily true, of course, if you plan to do further articles on the other attacks on Tirpitz. I hope you do since it would make a nice little good or featured topic.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks. WorldCat shows a copy of the German edition not that far from me, but no copies of the English-language edition are available in the country (and I can't read German). I'll order one as I'm intending to work on Operations Mascot and Goodwood, and would like to do something on the smaller British carrier strikes on Norway in 1944-45. Nick-D (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Also check for availability of J.D. Brown's updated Carrier Operations in World War II, ISBN 978-1-59114-108-2, a book consolidating and expanding his two earlier volumes on the topic. The changes seem to have been concentrated in the Pacific War sections, but something may have been added or corrected to the Norwegian ops section. I plan to work on getting the RN fleet carriers up to speed next year, so ping me if you want to check on something and I'll do the same.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red link Arthur La Touche Bisset and link tanker, Rear Admiral, semi-armour-piercing, and deck
    • All done except for "Rear Admiral": this seems overlinking in this context given that the exact nature of the rank isn't significant to the article, and should be linked in the articles on the people of this rank which follow the term. Nick-D (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I always link the rank in my articles as I always figure that a reader might not know the differences in the various types of Admirals or ranks in general.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I never do this as it seems unnecessary. As this article explicitly states the relationship between the handful of admirals involved I think that readers will be able to follow what's going on. Nick-D (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • did so at slower speeds than were necessary to penetrate her deck armour How about "lacked the necessary velocity to penetrate..."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's much better! I really struggled with this sentence. Thanks very much for your detailed comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2013 (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 10:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Si Tjonat[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is ready. Si Tjonat, based on the novel of the same name, was one of the earliest film adaptations of a novel in what is now Indonesia. It was also the predecessor to a series of martial arts films, although these are (like Si Tjonat itself) lost.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Minor comment: I see a small harv error coming up (something to do with the Pangemanann and Toer sources, I think). Ruby 2010/2013 17:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Support/Mendukung/Setuju Belum menjadi AP di WBI, jadi saya bilang setuju. Hanamanteo (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC) This translates to "It is not a featured article in the Indonesian wikipedia, thus I support it." This is tremendously nonsensical. A featured article is not chosen simply because it is not a featured article in another wikipedia; it is chosen because it has fulfilled all the required criteria! Thus, this vote should be completely disregarded.[reply]

Support – With just the one minor comment from me:

  • "Sim, of peranakan Chinese descent, had previous experience acting in the Shanghai-based film industry in China". For some reason "had previous acting experience in the Shanghai-based film industry in China" rolls off the tongue much easily. Also, do we need to say "Shanghai-based" and "China" in the same sentence? -- CassiantoTalk 15:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tried minimizing. I had gone with China as there is always a possibility the reader doesn't know Shanghai. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All good in that case. I'm liking these small and unknown Indonesian film articles! -- CassiantoTalk 22:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support Just a few things

Lede:

"(now Jakarta)" perhaps "today" instead of "now", as the "now" might be misunderstood by non-Indonesians to refer to the plot, not the city name.
  • I think that it being a silent film should be mentioned at the top of the lede, not dropped in offhand at the end.
Plot
  • "indigenous person". I think you need to be more specific as to what this term designates, despite the link. After all, you do not say where they escaped from to Batavia (I'm not saying you should, I'm saying that it the reader might be at something of a loss).
  • West Java (don't recall the village). In the novel he was explicitly Sundanese, which I've added here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tjonat later leaves the household to become a bandit." It could be argued that he already is one, perhaps "to live the life of a bandit".
  • The lede says the woman was kidnapped, the body says that the attempt was thwarted.
Release
  • " in the industry" used twice in close proximity, I would alter one or the other.
  • Found only one use of "in the industry", but reworked anyways. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " they later reused Sim" I don't like reused in that context, when applied to a person, rather than an object. Perhaps "casted"
  • "lost" concludes consecutive sentences in the last paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check There's only one and it is appropriately licensed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the image check and review. I think I got everything. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I had my say at an informal PR (left on the talk page); another read-through shows that the article has only improved since then. - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments Just two minor niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The story had proven— I'd say "proved", ignore if this is standard US-talk
  • JB Kristanto/F.D.J. Pangemanann—inconsistent use of full stops

Source review - spotchecks not done. Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges. Also, not a source comment, but I'm not sure "silent" makes sense for "language". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2013 (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 10:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Niels Bohr[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the mission to bring the Manhattan Project articles to Featured, I present one of the most famous physicists of all time: Niels Bohr. The Bohr model is what comes to mind when most people think of atoms. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone
This is, on my brief initial view, an excellent article. But I want to query a threshhold issue:

  • I would invite a defence from Hawkeye of the extensive reliance on the 1991 Pais biography, when several more recent bios are available. I note in particular that at least three biographies post-date the release of the Heisenberg archive items, whereas Pais precedes it.
    My starting point was Suspended in Language, and excellent and highly readable and entertaining account. But it's a graphic novel. In its notes, it provided a literature review. It recommended French and Kennedy (1985) ("No single volume gives a better overview"), and also Pais ("The most comprehensive book about Bohr"). So I picked up these at second-hand bookstores in Canberra. It did not recommend a more recent bio, and none is listed in the bibliography. Is there one that you would recommend? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring to Pasachoff (2003) and Spangenburg and Moser (2008). Spangenburg postdates both Pais and suspended in language and although Pasachoff is 2003, it is unlikely that Ottaviani was aware of it prior to finalising a book released in 2004. That is, both of these would have postdated Ottaviani's ability to recommend texts. I have no knowledge of the material, i just have something of a reservation about relying too heavily on a 22y.o. source in a situation where a historically singificant release of documents is known to post-date it. That said, I note the National Library of Australia has neither of the more recent books yet does have Pais, which makes me wonder about the importance of the more recent ones in the field. I am also not familiar with the two publishing houses that released them... hamiltonstone (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I am, and I do have a copy of Spangenburg and Moser. Got it for four bucks from Lifeline. These are books for younger readers. Pasachoff is for tweens, Spangenburg and Moser is for young adults. I have used the Makers of Modern Science Series for scientists where sources are scarce, but Spangenburg and Moser follow French and Kennedy, Pais and Moore. In the unlikely even that a tween asked me about Bohr, I would give her Ottaviani. However, there are two recent books, although neither is a full bio. Finn Aaserud and John Heilbron have produced Love, Literature and the Quantum Atom: Niels Bohr's 1913 Trilogy Revisited (2013), which I am currently reading, and Helge Kragh has produced Niels Bohr and the Quantum Atom: The Bohr Model of Atomic Structure 1913-1925 (2102).
    Thanks for that, I am happy with that explanation. Probably passed you somewhere at the book fair :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pleaded to the Swedish king". I'm pretty sure one pleads "with" someone, not to them? SImilarly I thought one "gives" refuge rather than "allows" it.
    • I've restored the original lead, which got lost somehow. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bohr resigned his membership in the Lutheran Church on 16 April 1912, and he and Margrethe were married in a civil ceremony at the town hall in Slagelse on 1 August." This is rather cryptic in its meaning. The words are plain enough, but the reader immediately reacts by understanding that there was some connection between leaving the church and marrying in the civil ceremony. But problems arise. In my country at least, one does not need to leave a church in order to be married in a civil ceremony: why is there a connection? Was Margrethe of another faith? But if so, why is it not mentioned? Then there is the phrase "resigned his membership" of the church. Why? My experience is that people who don't want to go to church any more just... don't go to church. How or why did he "resign"?
    • No, Margrethe was also a Lutheran. Her family were pretty upset at the couple's decision not to get married in a church. His brother Harald resigned before getting married too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Lutheran Church of Denmark is an established Church, which is supported by the taxpayers. Anyone who is christened (as Bohr was) becomes a member. You can resign your membership if you wish, but you still have to pay your taxes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • All interesting, but I guess I'm hoping the article can be edited to clarify some of these things. Given the location of the information about resigning membership, in the middle of text about the marriage, the clear implication is that his resignation was connected to the wedding somehow. I was hoping that answers to my queries might be clarified in the text, not just here at the discusion page. Otherwise looking excellent. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • My sources all agree that the resignation and the wedding were related. The implication seems clear in the text. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sorry, i'm obviously not articulating what I mean. Let me try again. My main issue is: why is there a relationship between resigning membership and getting married? If we can't explain the meaning of the connection, then the text mystifies the reader. It isn't a problem with the grammar or anything like that - it is a lack of an explanation of why Bohr linked these things. My secondary issue is the concept of "resigning" from a church. Your explanation above indicates this is to do with it being an "established church". I was wondering if it was worth somehow explaining this, but maybe that is excessive detail, and people will have to click through to Church of Denmark where (I assume!) it is explained. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where he met with J. J. Thomson, of Trinity College, Cambridge, and the Cavendish Laboratory." Just so i haven't misunderstood, the syntax of this sentence is that he met with Thomson and with the Cavendish Lab (a group of people). If what is meant is that Thomson was a member of both Trinity and Cavendish, then the sentence needs tweaking.
    • yes, that is what is meant. Tweaked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One aspect, the idea of modelling atomic behaviour under incident electromagnetic radiation using "virtual oscillators" at the absorption and emission frequencies, rather than the (different) apparent frequencies of the Bohr orbits, led Max Born, Werner Heisenberg and Kramers to explore mathematics that strongly inspired the subsequent development of matrix mechanics, the first form of modern quantum mechanics." Argh. First of all a para should not being by referring to "one aspect" of a thing from a previous para without stating what the thing is. Apart from that, the sentence is complex in structure making it challenging, even though I do not dispute its grammatical precision. Split it into at least two, and begin it with something like "One aspect of the BKS theory..."
  • "However, the most provocative element, that momentum and energy would not necessarily be conserved in each interaction but only overall, statistically,..." I think i got this, but the use of "statistically" as a one word subordinate clause is pretty weird. What about simply stating: "However, the most provocative element, that momentum and energy would not necessarily be conserved in each interaction but only overall,..."
    • Reworded. The is the real crux of the debate. Problem: the numbers don't add up. Solution no. 1: Add in a fudge factor (Pauli and Fermi). Solution no. 2: Say that the numbers don't always add up. (Bohr and Kramers). Okay, we know Fermi was right. But his neutrino was a particle of negligible mass that is unaffected by gravity and electromagnetism and therefore will travel through the Earth like a bullet through a fog. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...that Bohr was influenced by Kierkegaard via Høffding, who was strongly influenced by Kierkegaard." Is there a way of rephrasing this to avoid the rapid repetition of the philosopher's name?
  • "that items could be separately analysed as having several contradictory properties, such as a wave or a stream of particles depending on the experimental framework – two apparently mutually exclusive properties – on the basis of this principle". Something is wrong with the grammar here - the material from the dash onwards doesn't seem to match the preceding sentence structure.
    • that items could have apparently mutually exclusive properties, such as being a wave or a stream of particles, depending on the experimental framework Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For an article with such extensive notes and resources (ELs, Bohr's own writings etc) I would query the appropriateness of a 'further reading' section that includes biographies of Bohr that have not been cited at all in the text. Either 'use them or lose them' would probably be my inclination.

May come back another time. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John[edit]

Agree with much of what Hamiltonstone says above. I can't currently support as there are too many minor errors (we don't capitalise elements, it should be "Niels's", not "Niel's" for the possessive). That is easy to copy-edit out. The point about the sources is a more serious one. I am sitting on the fence for now. John (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find a single occurrence of either of these flaws. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to find flaws in your own work, isn't it? "...where me is the electron's mass, e is its charge, h is Planck's constant and Z is the atom's atomic number (which is 1 for Hydrogen)" is one, and "His other sons were Hans Henrik, a physician; Erik, a chemical engineer; and Ernest, a lawyer,[14] who, like Niel's brother Harald, became an Olympic athlete, and played field hockey for Denmark at the 1948 Summer Olympics in London.[15]" is the other. There are a bunch of silly errors like this and collectively they fail the article on prose at the moment; of course they can easily be fixed. The sources question needs more thought though. --John (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I've thoroughly read and copy-edited the article and am much happier with it now. Can I query the spelling and capitalisation of "privatdocent"? Is this correct in the sources? --John (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It matches the spelling and capitalisation in Pais, p. 135, which is the source, and is correct. See the Danish wikipedia entry for more details. Should it be italicised as a foreign word? Left a message on Wikidata about the inter-wiki links. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if we need 21 entries in the "Known for" section of the infobox? --John (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reduced to the most significant twelve. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice one. It is looking great and I am almost ready to support. --John (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A great article, it just had a few rough edges which have now been cleaned up. Good work. --John (talk) 10:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Quadell[edit]

  • I have performed a thorough copy edit of the entire article. I have to say, I found very few actual errors – fewer than many successful FACs, in fact. I did find several places, however, where I thought a rewording would be useful to make the text read more smoothly. (For instance, I changed "Now known as the Niels Bohr Institute, it opened its doors on 3 March 1921, with Bohr as its director and his family moving into an apartment on the first floor" ever so slightly to "Now known as the Niels Bohr Institute, it opened its doors on 3 March 1921 with Bohr as its director. His family moved into an apartment on the first floor." Some of these are matters of opinion. Hawkeye7, please review my changes and undo any that introduce any errors (or if you just don't like the style).
    I'm very happy with your edits. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider this sentence in the lead: "He predicted the existence of a new zirconium-like element, which was named hafnium, after Copenhagen, when it was discovered." It's quite unintuitive that Hafnia is a name for Copenhagen, and it would introduce so much grammatical complexity to the sentence to describe the relationship. I think it would be better to simply say "He predicted the existence of a new zirconium-like element, which was named hafnium when it was discovered." The rest is described perfectly well in the body of the article.
    Changed to: "which was named hafnium, after the Latin name for Copenhagen, where it was discovered". Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Good enough. – Quadell (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He went beyond the original task, incorporating improvements into both the theory and the method". I don't know what theory and method you mean. Could you reword? The original task was to "investigate a method for measuring" things. So do you mean this? "He went beyond the original task, improving the existing theory of surface tension measurement and incorporating such improvements into the methods he used." Or something else?
    The original task was to "investigate a method for measuring the surface tension of liquids that had been proposed by Lord Rayleigh in 1879". (Looks up what this involved in Pais.) incorporating improvements into both Rayleigh's theory and his method. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Much clearer, thanks. – Quadell (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider this complex sentence: "The idea of modelling atomic behaviour under incident electromagnetic radiation using "virtual oscillators" at the absorption and emission frequencies, rather than the (different) apparent frequencies of the Bohr orbits, led Max Born, Werner Heisenberg and Kramers to explore mathematics that strongly inspired the subsequent development of matrix mechanics, the first form of modern quantum mechanics." This needs to be split into at least two sentences, though I don't understand the concepts well enough to divide the sentence myself.
    Split into two sentences. The problem is that the readers learned all about matrices in primary school, and are likely quite familiar with the determinant. Whereas at the time many physicists thought that Born was just out to bamboozle them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Improved. – Quadell (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider: "Bohr pointed out that he had concerns about the interaction between the electron and the magnetic field." I find myself wondering: which electron, and which magnetic field? Would it be accurate to say "about the interaction between electrons and magnetic fields"?
    Yes. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the paragraphs of the Quantum Mechanics section ends with the direct quote "Shortly before his death [Bohr] complained that no professional philosopher had ever understood his doctrine of complementarity." The quote isn't attributed in text, but just in a footnote. I don't see the reason for a direct quote here, and I think rewording it in your own words would be preferable.
Note: this is the only remaining problem with the nomination, in my estimation. – Quadell (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrased the quote. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you say "the phenomenon of beta decay once again had Bohr suggesting that the law of conservation of energy be abandoned", do you mean that Bohr had previously suggested we abandon the law of conservation of energy? The text doesn't mention that. (Either way, the sentence could use to be reworded.)
    Yes it does. Back when I was talking about BKS. The most provocative element of BKS – that momentum and energy would not necessarily be conserved in each interaction, but only statistically Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I'd missed that. I reworded the sentence in a minor way. – Quadell (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The brief "Philosophy" section has a number of problems. The phrase "Christian existentialist philosopher" (describing Kierkegaard) links to Christian existentialism, Existentialism, and Christian philosophy. That's a bit of overkill. I would simply link "Christian existentialist" to Christian existentialism, and not link the word "philosopher" at all.
    It is a bit brief. I will have a go at expanding it. I'm not entirely confident (1) whether I understand it (2) whether Bohr understood it or (3) whether anyone understands it at all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You quote Bohr in a letter saying that he read Kierkegaard, and loved it. Do you really need to say "It is generally accepted that Bohr read Søren Kierkegaard"? You give reasons to doubt that Kierkegaard's philosophy influenced Bohr to a great extent, but is there reason to doubt that he read Kierkegaard? If not, I would drop the first sentence and start the paragraph with "Richard Rhodes argued in The Making of the Atomic Bomb that Bohr was influenced by Kierkegaard, the 19th-century Danish Christian existentialist philosopher, through Høffding."
  • In the "Philosophy" section, the second paragraph ends with an explanation (oversimplified, I'm sure) of Bohr's disagreements with Kierkegaard. That sentence should probably be at the end of the first paragraph of "Philosophy". In fact, I think it would flow best to end the first paragraph simply with "he had some disagreement with Kierkegaard's philosophy, mostly resulting from Bohr's atheism."
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't appear so. The "Christian existentialist philosopher" issue is resolved, and the "generally accepted" issue is at least partly resolved (and is probably good enough now), but the location of the atheism explanation is not changed. – Quadell (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's much improved now. I still feel like the prose in that section could be improved, but I don't think it's an impediment to FA status. – Quadell (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the fact that Bohr was an atheist really merit five references? That's a bit of overkill.
    Reduced to three. For some reason, many wikipedians regard this as a touchy subject. ("There is no God, and Dirac is His prophet") Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine now. (I had not heard that about Dirac. That's very funny.) – Quadell (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Meeting with Heisenberg" section, Supek alone claimed (based on his recollection of Bohr's wife's private statements) that von Weizsäcker was "the main character" of the discussion. I can't tell whether he's saying that von Weizsäcker was there, or simply that he was the main topic, or that he had instigated the conversation. That claim is not backed by Mrs. Bohr's memoirs, nor by Heisenberg's letter to Jungk, nor by Bohr's unsent letter. Is it really worth a mention?
    Von Weizsäcker was in Copenhagen. Consensus among historians is that it makes more sense than Heisenberg's version. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? That whole incident is very strange. Regardless, I don't suppose further changes are needed. – Quadell (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "the conversation went wrong" feels too casual to me, but I confess I can't think of a better wording. Can you?
    Removed it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you say "Sweden's willingness to provide asylum", it isn't clear if you mean "to Bohr alone" or "to all Jews" or "to anyone who wants to flee German-controlled territory".
    Corrected. Warning: This is a very touchy subject in both Denmark and Sweden. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I still feel like when you say "The next day, Bohr persuaded King Gustav V of Sweden to make public Sweden's willingness to provide asylum", it sounds like you mean "to himself." But the next sentence makes it clear enough that I'm not going to hold up the nomination on this point. – Quadell (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the wording to avoid giving this impression. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence beginning "Historians are divided..." feels like it is preemptively heading off a challenge, and I think it could be worded better. I want to be careful here, since I haven't read the sources. But would the following wording be an accurate way to state the various historical views? (This would replace the entire sentence that currently begins "Historians are divided":
    Some historians claim that Bohr's actions led directly to the mass rescue; others claim that, though Bohr did all that he could for his countrymen, his actions were not a decisive event in the rescue.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, and with minimal seriousness, I would totally see any band called The Prophets of the Electron Magnet Gospel.

Support, this is a fine article, and passes all our FA criteria. – Quadell (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(end of Review by Quadell)

Support - Comprehensive, well-written and well-researched. Great work! 23 editor (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Engagement caption shouldn't include period
  • File:Niels_Bohr_Albert_Einstein_by_Ehrenfest.jpg needs US PD tag
    • I have fixed this. – Quadell (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't determine that it's PD in the U.S. I see that it has been removed from the article. – Quadell (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Solvay1933Large.jpg: licensing tag indicates author is anonymous, and yet an author is named in the description?
    • The author is not anonymous; the author is Benjamin Couprie, whose year of death is not known. I suspect we can't see the source right now because of the U.S. government shutdown. I can't determine the copyright status of this image. However, Bohr was also at the 1927 Solvay conference, and the picture of that previous meeting File:Solvay conference 1927.jpg has been confirmed to have been published in Belgium in 1927, certifying that it is PD. (It is also a featured image on the Commons.) Could it be used instead? – Quadell (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see that it has been replaced. – Quadell (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Assistens_Kirkegård_Niels_Bohr.jpg: given that Denmark does not have freedom of panorama for non-buildings, what is the copyright status of the stonework? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Denmark does have Freedom of Panorama, at least for buildings. Added a tag. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, for buildings it does. But this image will probably be deleted as a derivative work of the sculptor Willumsen's copyright. It should be removed from the article. – Quadell (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Help! Don't know what to do about the middle two images. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the first, do we know if/when it was published in the US? If it was, the date will decide what tag is appropriate; if it wasn't, it's probably not free. For the second, I can't see the cited source - is the author attribution correct? If so, life+70 for EU, and refer to previous image regarding US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure what you mean by "the first" and "the second". – Quadell (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hawkeye said he didn't know what to do with the middle two - that's what first and second was referring to. Incidentally, your fix on the first of those (File:Niels_Bohr_Albert_Einstein_by_Ehrenfest.jpg) does not appear to be correct - the tag you added is typically used for pre-1923 publications, which this is not. Can you explain your usage? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Let's see, the photo was created in 1925 in Holland, and the photographer (a Dutch citizen) died in 1933. The source seems to be an expired link, and I don't know the publication history. If it was an unpublished private photograph (or if it was not published until 2003 or later), then it would be considered PD in the U.S. since the author died more than 70 years ago. If it was first published in the U.S., it would have to have been registered and renewed according to U.S. copyright law in order to still be under copyright, but that possibility seems remote. Are you thinking of URAA issues? – Quadell (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Potentially, as we're missing date and place of first publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yeah, I need to be more careful. I changed the licensing information. The image has been removed. – Quadell (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone check the two new images? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN63: publisher? Also, from what I can tell, Register would have been at most a master's student at that time - what makes this a high-quality source?
    • Looks okay to me, but I can source from elsewhere. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher locations, and if so whether states are abbreviated
  • Check alphabetization of References and of Further reading. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

  • "He conceived the principle": Definition 5 of "conceive" in the SOED could be said to support this, but it's a bit poetic; personally, I'd insert an "of" or use a different verb.
    a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Of course that would be considered socialist and un-American today, but it is a good use of "conceived". I can't imagine using "of" with "conceived"; although dictionary.com says you can, it doesn't give an example. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone is following my notes, I made this suggestion, then deleted it when I considered that "conceiving a principle" isn't so far off from "conceiving a notion of" (which is fine). - Dank (push to talk) 23:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The other four went on to lead successful lives.": I don't have any problem with this sentence per se, but I have a problem with the interpretation that some will put on it: that the sons weren't ditch-diggers. But who are they to judge whether a ditch-digger has a "successful life"? Not much would be lost by simply omitting this sentence, since you list their professions, unless the sources were saying something more, that they were all "celebrated" ... in which case, I'd be curious to know more.
    What I'm actually saying is that in Wikipedia terms, they are notable. Hans became a professor of medicine and pioneered the development of tetracyclin. Erik became the Danish ambassador to Britain. They don't have articles on the English wikipedia, but they do on the Danish Wikipedia. Aage does, and I created the one on Ernest, an Olympian. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "model, and Bohr received an invitation to conduct post-doctoral work at Manchester. As a post-doctoral student there, Bohr met ... and was intrigued by a paper by Darwin on electrons.": We could lose some repetition here, if you like: "model. Bohr received an invitation to conduct post-doctoral work at Manchester, where he met ... who wrote a paper on electrons that intrigued Bohr."
    Done, and moved the bit about Darwin. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he became a privatdocent at the University of Copenhagen and gave lectures on": SOED italicizes privatdocent. Also, when many readers won't know what the word means, a participle often works a little better than "and": ", giving lectures on". If you say someone was one thing and did something else, it doesn't necessarily mean that one has anything to do with the other; the participle suggests (mildly) that they're related ... not a lot, but it's "at least a clue", as recommended by WP:Checklist#clarity. - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "He had a serious car crash, and was killed" (He was attacked by a bear while walking home.) I did ask above if they should be italicised. I think people like me were hung up on the spelling, which differs from the German. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lektor": I have no objection to the foreign spelling, but it's not in SOED or other dictionaries that way, so italicize it if you keep that spelling.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He felt that that complementarity": I'd probably go with "He felt that this principle". (But then in the next sentence, to avoid repetition, I'd go with "and Bohr embraced it", or something similar.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Very readable. - Dank (push to talk) 21:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments of Fowler&fowler[edit]

  • Comments of Fowler&fowler: I am a big fan of Niels Bohr. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to offer detailed criticism in the manner above. Instead, in the next five or ten minutes, I will tweak the lead a little, and you can take or leave what you want. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've tweaked it a bit. I wish you luck. I may come back and take a look at the rest of the article some other time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the Copley Medal into the Infobox. Restored the original wording about Denmark being occupied, which occurred without any fighting, and the text about his escaping arrest. Changed the wording about CERN as I did not wish to imply that he wanted it in Geneva rather than Copenhagen. The bit about him being a philosopher was the result of considerable haggling earlier on; originally it also said that he was a footballer. I was not sure about the bit about the Rutherford-Bohr Model. The article does not go into detail about the Rutherford Model. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The descriptions of both the Bohr Model and the Principle of Complementarity are highly inaccurate. Will come back and pick my way through the rest of the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say, "Bohr developed the Bohr model of the atom with the atomic nucleus at the centre and electrons around it" That was already known. It is Rutherford's model. Besides, what does "with the electrons around it" mean? Revolving around it? Fixed in space around it? You go on, "which he compared to the planets orbiting the Sun." OK, but that is not Bohr's model. Bohr's model, after all allows changes of energy levels. Planets aren't allowed that. You say next, "He helped develop quantum mechanics, in which electrons move from one energy level to another in discrete steps, instead of continuously." There are a number of problems:
  • It sound like the Bohr model and the quantum mechanics are separate; in fact, Bohr was the first to apply (pre-existing) quantum theory, (not "mechanics") to model atomic structure. All the previous models had used classical mechanics. That was his great contribution.
  • The electrons don't move from one energy level to another in discrete steps (sort of like jumping up the rungs of the ladder from the first floor to the second); the energy levels are themselves discrete; the electrons jump directly from the first floor to the second without a ladder.
  • Why do you mention "continuously," if that notion wasn't already around (i.e. in Rutherford's model)?

I am suggesting my version, "Bohr radically changed the existing Rutherford model of the atom, in which electrons revolve(d) around a central atomic nucleus in continuously changing paths. Instead, in the Bohr model, he proposed that energy levels of the electrons, each associated with an orbit, are discrete, that electrons revolve in stable orbits around the nucleus, akin to planets around the sun, except when they jump from one energy level (or orbit) to another. Although the Bohr model has been supplanted by other models, its underlying quantum theory remains valid." (sorry it should have been "revolved") is not only more accurate but also cleaner. It can be tweaked some more, but it is important to point out that in Rutherford's model (and in a number of other contemporaneous models) electrons could spiral inward or outward relative to the nucleus. After Bohr, we know that can't happen. Rutherford is essential to Bohr, who, after all, was Rutherford's post-doc of sorts at Cambridge. I'll get to the other issues later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Here, btw, is Britannica's description of the "Bohr atomic model" which is very similar to mine: "The Bohr model of the atom, a radical departure from earlier, classical descriptions, was the first that incorporated quantum theory and was the predecessor of wholly quantum-mechanical models. The Bohr model and all of its successors describe the properties of atomic electrons in terms of a set of allowed (possible) values. Atoms absorb or emit radiation only when the electrons abruptly jump between allowed, or stationary, states." And, yes, you should definitely mention the emitted photon in the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say in the lead sentence: "was a Danish physicist who made foundational contributions to understanding atomic structure and quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922." Nope. He didn't make contributions to "quantum mechanics". He couldn't have received the Nobel for it in 1922, because QM was invented after 1922 by Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Born, and others. But mainly what does the sentence convey in concrete terms? Nothing. Contrast that with what I wrote (and I made a mistake, by not changing your "mechanics" to "theory"): "was a Danish physicist who was the first to apply quantum theory to the study of atomic structure. A key figure of early 20th century physics, he received the Nobel Prize in 1922." That tells you something concrete about what he did. Again, Bohr's only brush with quantum mechanics came later in the late 1920s, but his fundamental work was the application of "quantum theory." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds very reasonable. I've re-worded it to

Bohr developed the Bohr model of the atom, in which he proposed that energy levels of electrons are discrete, and that they revolve in discrete, stable orbits around the atomic nucleus, akin to planets around the sun, except that they can jump from one energy level (or orbit) to another. Although the Bohr model has been supplanted by other models, its underlying principles remain valid.

I'm hesitant to describe this as a radical departure from what Haas, Lorentz, Nicholson and Darwin were saying. The point is that Bohr was able to explain it and tie it all together so nicely. He received his Nobel Prize "for his services in the investigation of the structure of atoms and of the radiation emanating from them". I took the last bit to mean the old quantum theory. Let me know if you disagree on this point. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the two crucial sections: Bohr model and Complementarity. You've clearly done a lot of good work on the article, but those two sections are weak. As a mathematically sophisticated reader (who already knows about Bohr's work), I'm unable to understand the physics they purport to convey. So, I'm not hopeful that the average reader will understand much (beyond the gossip). I can help you with them, but I'll be out of town this coming week. If you can wait until next Monday, I'll attempt to clarify the physics of those sections. Sorry, but if the physics sounds undigested, in an article about a physicist, the article doesn't look good. More in a week. I hope you understand. I am trying to help you, even if I sometime sound brusque. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for your remark above about quantum theory, yes, Bohr contributed to it, but it was already around (after Planck and Einstein). I think the important thing in a lead sentence is to state the scientist's main contribution, not what he got the Nobel prize for. The Nobel committee is traditionally conservative in its prize citations (Einstein, 15 years after the special theory, five after the general, and even after Eddington's experimental verification during the total solar eclipse in Antarctica in 1919), received the prize for the photoelectric effect and services to physics.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Einstein got his Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect - quantum. It's true that Planck and Einstein had already introduced quantum. Bohr was the one who used it to explain atomic structure. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But his great contribution was the theory of relativity (the special theory 1906, the general theory 1915, which was verified by Arthur Eddingtons famous expedition to the Southern Hemisphere in 1919, all of which went unmentioned in the Nobel citation, which only mentioned his "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"). What does that tell you? You can't go by Nobel prize citations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am specifically opposing on FA criteria 1(b), (c) and 2(a). Consider the statement on complementarity (which was Bohr's main contribution to quantum mehanics) in the quantum mechanics section, " that items could have apparently mutually exclusive properties, such as being a wave or a stream of particles, depending on the experimental framework." Now look at the statement about complementarity in the lead: "that items could be separately analysed in terms of contradictory properties, like behaving as a wave or a stream of particles." They are about the same length. You would expect the Quantum Mechanics section to have a detailed explanation of complementarity; instead it is mostly about who said what to whom. The same is more or less true for the Bohr model section. There are two mathematical formulas. The goal apparently is to show that by deriving the second Bohr provided an explanation for the first. But other than mentioning that fact, nothing is said why the second formula provides the underlying explanation for the first. It is not even explained what n is in Balmer's formula. These two sections will require a major rewrite. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@delegate: Please ensure that the nomination is closed on or before 31 October 2013. Thank you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@delegate: Why should it be closed before 31 October 2013? If the principle author has regurgitated undigested physics in the two crucial sections in the article and has mostly gossip in the remaining (and I say that as someone who knows a thing or two about mathematics and mathematical physics (see who wrote it)), doesn't seem to know the difference between quantum theory and quantum mechanics, has a lead that is shabby by college physics standards (let alone encyclopedic standards), what rule says a nomination has to be closed 3 weeks after it began? Hawkeye7, please don't play hardball with me. Like I said, I'm trying to help you with the article. (Delegate: I'm happy to have an independent expert evaluation of the article.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I assume when you ask that the FAC be closed on or before 31 October, you're in effect saying that if consensus to promote hasn't been reached by then that you'd like to withdraw it?
No, we already have consensus to promote. The issue is only whether "actionable objections have not been resolved". There are none at present; simply saying that the work of many editors is "shabby" and "unencyclopaedic" does not constitute an actionable objection. If it is going to be promoted then I would prefer that it be promoted before 31 October; but if not then it should be withdrawn as soon as possible. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed those comments aren't helpful -- more the opposite, as I've noted below -- but the specific objections further above appear to deserve a response at the very least, and possibly action, so let's not get ahead of ourselves re. finding consensus, which doesn't follow a predetermined schedule. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: Your comment just above goes beyond "brusque" -- it appears to from the earlier threads that Hawkeye has shown willingness to work with you on altering the article, so if you truly wish to help then please drop the cheap insults and stick to the specifics.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Hawkeye and Fowler are misunderstanding each other. Fowler, Hawkeye is currently 3rd in the final round of the Wikicup, which closes October 31. He has a long, long list of A-class articles that haven't made it through FAC yet because "heavy" articles tend to take a while at FAC, and I know that's frustrating. It's worse when someone says that they need substantial changes to the article, but they don't plan on telling him what those changes are until close to the Wikicup deadline. Hawkeye, I don't think Fowler is being arbitrary, I believe the criticisms are (as far as I remember from my dusty college days) accurate. I don't think we need to wait a week to get started; there are a lot of people at WP:PHYSICS who would be more than happy to help; I can leave a request if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 01:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikicup should not be unduly influencing reviews one way or the other -- BTW, why isn't this labelled as an entry? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is normally labelled as such by the UcuchaBot. You should verify that the bot is running. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, it's doing its usual tasks of highlighting TFAs at WP:FA and moving the old noms marker at WP:FAC, odd that this routine's not working... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Fowler and Fowler:

(I'm having a hard time connecting to the internet. I'm emailing this to my family. Someone there will post it to WP. I will be off Wikipedia until late Sunday night or early Monday morning.)

I didn't know anything about the Wiki trophy and Hawkeye7 did not tell me anything about it. I was assuming that the article had been submitted to FAC because 2013 is the hundredth anniversary of Bohr's famous trilogy (of papers in which he described the Bohr model, the third of which was published in November 1913). That, as far as I'm concerned, is the more important deadline. Anyway, I understand that Hawkeye7 needs his points. I suppose there are two ways to do this:

1) You can promote the article now, as long as I'm allowed to edit the physics sections (Bohr's model, Quantum mechanics) after my return and WP:OWN#Featured_article is not invoked at every step of my way.

2)If that is not agreeable to the delegates, and someone from the physics project is willing to help, it would be great. Here is what needs to be described in the Bohr's model section.


A) The background to Bohr's model. It doesn't have to be long, but it is needs to be touched upon to place Bohr's model in context and also to make the connection between Bohr's thesis and why he chose to go to Cambridge and then Manchester:

  • There was a long tradition of atom model building, especially in Britain, for a half century before the discovery of the electron by JJ Thomson in 1897. These models included astronomical or solar system models, which Rutherford and Bohr drew upon. (They didn't invent something out of the blue.
  • Thomson was a classical physicist trained in the late 19th century tradition. In his model, the so-called "plum pudding model," published rigorously in 1904, an atom was a sphere filled with positively charged ether (a theoretical physics "fluid" permeating the universe, not the contents of the surgeon's bottle) inside which negatively charged electrons rotated in various stable polygonal configuration. Thomson's model was the widely accepted model during the period 1904 to 1910. Final experimental death blow was dealt by Rutherford.
  • In 1911, Rutherford (who had been primarily interested in radioactivity, for which he received the Nobel in Chemistry in 1908), noticed (or people in his lab did) that when beams of positively charged small alpha particles were directed at metal sheets, some

particles were deflected by the heavy metal atoms by large angles (>90 degrees). This couldn't happen if the positive charge was uniformly distributed through the ether (a la Thomson) and thus not strong enough at any one point, or line, to repel. Rutherford posited a high positive charge and mass at the central nucleus with electrons rotating around it (in the manner of the 19th century astronomical models). However, classical electrostatics and dynamics (inverese square law) implied that this system would not be stable, leading the electrons to spiral inwards.

B) For someone who clearly understands the physics, the development of the Bohr model (1912 to 1913) is described in great detail in:

  • Kragh, Helge (2012), Niels Bohr and the Quantum Atom: The Bohr Model of Atomic Structure 1913-1925, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-965498-7
  • Mehra, Jagdish; Rechenberg, Helmut (2001), The Historical Development of Quantum Theory: The Quantum Theory of Plank, Einstein, Bohr, and Sommerfeld, Its Foundations and the Rise of its Difficulties 1900–1925, Heidelberg and New York: Springer, ISBN 978-0-387-95174-4
  • Nye, Mary Jo (1999), Before Big Science: The Pursuit of Modern Chemistry and Physics, 1800-1940, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0-674-06382-2

Otherwise, they could use the mathematical appendix of John Polkinghorne's Quantum World or Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Polkinghorne niceley describes Bohrs innovation and how he was able to derive Balmer's forumula. (Seriously, you could even use George Gamow's Mr. Tomkins explores the atom (Cambridge), which I read in high-school, which has great intuition into quantum theory.)

C) The Quantum Mechanics and Complementarity: The complemantarity material is trickier and I'll get to that upon my return. If someone understands it, here is a useful book, but just quoting out of it will defeat the purpose: they could use: Plotnitsky, Arkady (2013), Niels Bohr and Complementarity: An Introduction, New York, NY; Heidelberg: Springer, ISBN 978-1-4614-4517-3 if they have access to it.

Anyway, the main thing for me is that the article is strangely disconnected; it has a sequence of facts, but no intuitive connections and coherence to grab the reader and to communicate Bohr's achievement. Niels Bohr was primarily a great theoretical physicist. The article has as much space devoted to Bohr's two years during WWII (1943-45), as it does to Bohr's great period of creativity 1910 to 1930. (I do understand that this last objection (or regret) is not "actionable," but actionable is a relative concept, what is not actionable for someone might be very actionable for someone else.)

Fowler and Fowler 02:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

PS Portion left out by mistake from email (I think this might end of section A ): Whether the other models of Nagaoka, Haas, Nicholson etc are touched upon or not, this section will require a description of Darwin's alpha particle absorption paper which too was based on Rutherford's nucleus model and how Bohr's disagreement with it led to his breakthrough. For absorption (in contrast to scattering), it was the electrons which were important. But in Darwins (and Rutherford's model, the electrons were free). Bohr's objected that the slowing down of alpha particles would depend on the motion of the electrons, and they needed to be held to the nucleus by an elastic force. This led him to impose the quantum jump frequency condition. Fowler and Fowler 04:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is the 100th Anniversary of the Trilogy. Unfortunately, TFA is currently taking bids for 11 November through 11 December, so November is slipping away. Obviously it would have been better to have submitted the article earlier, but this wasn't possible in July, as I wanted to get a couple of books (including Kragh) that came out for the 100th. And I never imagined that an article submitted at the start of August would take until October to get through. Now it is going to be tough getting a slot in 2013 at all. :( Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Fowler&Fowler. I am offering my support. Delegates please promote. This is a once in a century event, and with the exception of some hardy Greek islanders, none of us are likely to be around for the next one. Hawkeye, please reserve Thanksgiving (Nov 28) for Bohr. That will give us some time to tweak the fine details and have something to be thankful for. Fowler and Fowler Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:38, 23 October 2013 (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, 26 October 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Francis Nash[edit]

Nominator(s): Cdtew (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a comprehensive examination of this general, whose short career resulted in widespread commemoration, but little subsequent historical reflection. I believe I have compiled all the substantive sources on the subject, and the article recently passed A-Class Review at WP:MILHIST. I'm looking forward to your comments!. Cdtew (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. The article version is essentially the same as the one I supported for A-class. Nice work. - Dank (push to talk) 22:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • @Nikkimaria: Nikki, thanks again for your help. I have corrected the two issues you raised. Cdtew (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close to support on all criteria, including images (conducted an image check, two U.S. government images, one pre-1923, one freely licenced own work). The prose is often a bit wordy, and there are some places where slightly more detail seems to be called for (where I, as a reader ignorant of the subject matter, found myself wanting more - which I should say is itself a credit to the article's flow and tone). Specific comments:

  • Many thanks on the expert copy work; I appreciate it sincerely and have no quibbles.
  • I'm a little surprised that this article has made it as far as it has with the same sentence repeated twice at the end of the article - I've removed one of its occurrences, but it does make me wonder how thoroughly this has been copyedited.
  • Without examining the diffs, I can't say how that happened. I have to imagine that was a copy/paste error that occurred at some point after its latest review at Milhist.
  • "Francis had a law practice in Childsburgh..." This makes it sound pre-existing, which I assume it wasn't. "...started a law practice", maybe?
  • Agreed, and done.
  • "Nash had an illegitimate child, possibly a son..." This sounds silly, because as far as I can tell "possibly a son" doesn't add any information at all. Is there a reason it's there?
  • Given that so little is known of his personal life, it adds some information, though the information is speculative. The sources from which I cite prevaricate on the gender of the child, but most (particularly the one cited) believe it was a son. The "possibly" just indicates to the reader that the sources don't know with any certainty. I'd entertain any other method of conveying this information, but it's information I believe that deserves to stay.
  • If that's what most sources say, I'd suggest just saying that: "Nash had an illegitimate child, which most sources identify as a son..." Just saying "possibly a son" tells us nothing; it's like saying "My wife is pregnant, possibly with a son!" When a kid's sex isn't specified, it's implied that it's possibly a son. Or possibly a daughter.
  • I've altered this whole structure so it makes more sense. The sentence wasn't worded well, I'll admit, and I think the new wording better reflects scholars' consensus (and lack of precise knowledge). Cdtew (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A trial found Nash innocent of public corruption." Did it find him innocent, or not guilty? I don't know my eighteenth century North Carolina criminal law very well, but I'd wager that it was the latter, since common law jurisdictions (which includes every state except Louisiana) do not normally have a verdict of "innocent".
  • N.B.: I do business litigation and contracts. Never have I even done one criminal case. And I intentionally tried to forget all of my Crim Law. But, that being said, the source says he was "exonerated", which if I recall correctly implies that a person has been affirmatively found not to have done something, rather than being merely found to have not done something based on a preponderance of the evidence (ie: a criminal is found "not guilty" when the State can't prove its case, but is "exonerated" when, after a conviction, it's discovered that he didn't actually commit the crime). I will likely just modify this to "exonerated" to match the source. Cdtew (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it happens, I practice almost exclusively criminal law, but very little of it in eighteenth century North Carolina. At least here in Canada, "exonerated" has no fixed legal meaning, but I agree with you about what it implies. I'm still a little queasy about that, because in my experience sources, including reliable ones, often confused being found not guilty with being exonerated or found innocent, and I have a hunch that that's what's happening here. Still, we're limited by our sources, and if that's what the source says, I agree that it's the best solution.
  • After consulting another source, I've changed this to reflect the situation as the other source describes it -- simply charges dismissed.
  • "...he attempted to use the militia to put down several riots..." Could we say "ordered" rather than "attempted to use"?
  • Agreed, and done.
  • Is there reason to believe that an article will at some point be created for Adlai Osborne? Having now taken a glance at your userpage, I consider that question answered. Steve Smith (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a goal for Fall 2013.
  • "In 1771, and again in 1773–1775, he served in the colonial Assembly as a representative for Hillsborough." Any further details about his political career? I assume that he had to be elected to this assembly - do we know if he was opposed? Do we know why he wasn't a member from 1771–1773?
  • I will dig further into the election details; as for details about his political career as a whole, what is in the article is all I've been able to find. I will double-check to make sure nothing was left out, though. My library of colonial North Carolina sources is probably the largest in private, non-institutional hands.
  • Anything you could add would be helpful, I think, but it's not worth holding up the FA over. Back when I was attending law school in New Brunswick, I referred to my own collection as "New Brunswick's largest privately held library on Alberta's political history", which was a claim that I felt reasonably comfortable making, but now that I'm back in Alberta I suspect that I share the province with larger collections.
  • Ah, the minor claims to fame we have to make. I only can say I'm certain about my claim because the North Carolinian with the largest private library gave much of his to me, and I bought much of another North Carolinian's large library. I couldn't find other descriptions of the election; the official Colonial Records only detail when he was elected, and when he was sworn in. In order to find more, I'm sure I'd have to dig into newspapers (of which there was only one -- the North Carolina Gazette) from the time.
  • "In 1774, Royal Governor Josiah Martin attempted to prevent the North Carolina Assembly from convening..." This sounds important. How did he attempt to prevent it? Did he order it not to convene? Did he send soldiers?
  • I clarified; he didn't really have soldiers to begin with, as the militia was firmly in control of those that supported the soon-to-be-Patriotd. This needed to be clarified anyways - I've changed it to clarify the set of circumstances fully.
  • "colonial Assembly" There's some confusion throughout this article as to what's a proper noun and what isn't. What was the official name of this body? If it was "Colonial Assembly", then both words should be capitalized. If it was just "Assembly" (which I doubt), then the way it is is fine. If it was anything else, neither word should be capitalized.
  • This is another tricky one. No official name was given to the body by the 1663 and 1665 charters of Carolina; it said merely the people shall have a right to "assemble" to pass laws. In NC, the body called itself varyingly the Upper and Lower Houses of the North Carolina Assembly, the lower house calling itself often in the 18th century the "House of Assembly" or the "House of Commons", and the whole bicameral unit was later labeled the North Carolina General Assembly, which is confusing because that's the name of the legislative body existing in NC from 1776 to the present. So, in line with most of the sources, I have taken to calling it the "colonial Assembly", to differentiate it from the post-colonial Assembly that would later be known as the state "General Assembly". I've had this discussion before, and I believe I'm doing the right thing by the sources. I did clarify which house he was in, though.
  • "Nash returned with his regiment to North Carolina in anticipation of being ordered to join General George Washington's army in the north, but fears of British and Indian attacks in Georgia prevented any orders for him to join the main Continental Army." So was he then ordered to Georgia? Or was he left in North Carolina in case he had to go to Georgia?
  • The latter. I've clarified.
  • "Howe was forced to remain in command of the Continental troops defending South Carolina." The way this is worded, it sort of sounds like he was ordered by his higher-ups to do so, against his will. Reading between the lines, I gather that the troops were sufficiently in the thick of things that a change in command was impractical. Can you clarify?
  • Clarified. Howe was basically given a promotion that paved his way to Major General; although he wanted to be involved in what he thought was the main bulk of the fighting in the Northern colonies, he also wanted the rank, so it was semi-consensual. No need to go into all of that detail here, though.
  • "After his death, on April 29, 1784, his heirs received..." I'd rather reword this to the active voice. Who awarded this to his heirs? The Continental Congress? Washington?
  • Clarified.
  • Images: All of the ones there are properly licenced, but I wonder if they're the best choices. Here's a freely licenced image of the monument at his home that might be suitable for the last section, or, alternatively, here's one of his gravestone (or something similar). I suspect that this image and this one are public domain, in which case they'd make worthy additions to the article, although you'd have to do some digging to be sure. In contrast, File:AlamanceBattleground.jpg doesn't seem to add a great deal, and I don't know if the detail in the article on the Battle of Germantown is sufficient for File:Battle of Germantown.Dean.USMA.edu.history.gif to be helpful. Finally, are there really no images of the man? I admit that a Google search didn't turn any up, but it would be surprising to me if somebody sufficiently significant to have a major city named after him wasn't committed to canvass at some point.
  • I appreciate the insight; as I get time over the next day or two, I will mull your images over, several of which I agree are more fitting. I never really considered the use of Flickr images before. As for a portrait, I'm afraid I've come up dry. In fact, in my series on the Continental Army generals from NC, only 1/5th (Robert Howe (Continental Army officer)) had a portrait I've been able to access. Another, James Moore (Continental Army officer) has a portrait that may be post-mortem fantasy, but I have only seen it in person, aside from one blurry reprinting in a 25-year old book. I think the fact is that Nash was just not significant until the moment of his death, and painters were in short supply in colonial NC. In fact, it strikes me that the military commanders from NC who did have portraits were mostly militia commanders, who had the comforts of the homefront with them constantly.
  • Still, I'd have expected there to be, at minimum, a "post-mortem fantasy" or two, if only so there could be something to hang in Nashville's city hall. You know the sources far better than I do, though, and I'm certainly not insisting that you dig up an image that may not even exist. With respect to Flickr, I find it a great resource for freely licenced non-historical photographs.
  • I replaced the Alamance image with one of the Chew house you found, which had previously been uploaded to Wikipedia. As for the Map of Germantown, I replaced it with the Highway Historical marker. The DAR Gravestone/Monument isn't one I can use, as I have no way of verifying whether or not it was erected prior to 1976 for the purposes of determining copyright. Regardless, the original grave marker is on the web, too, but pictures of it are generally low-quality. Another thing to think about in re: portraiture is that Nashville was originally a backwoods trading post known as "Fort Nashborough"; I don't think there was ever an inclination that it would become a booming capital until 30 years after Nash's death. Cdtew (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overally, certainly a strong article that I expect to support before we're through here. Steve Smith (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Smith: Steve, thank you for your comments. I intend to address them all within the next few days. My schedule is a little crazy because of an appeal argument i'm doing this week. Do you mind if I reply to each of your points below your comment in italics? If you'd prefer I didn't break up your text, I will reply below. Cdtew (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No objection at all to that, and I'm in no hurry. Steve Smith (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your comment above tells me that you're a lawyer; I hadn't realized that when I made my point about "innocent" vs. "not guilty", or I might have been a touch less condescending. Steve Smith (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry - I do contracts and business litigation. Wouldn't touch a criminal case with a 10ft pole, unless I wanted to go ahead and call my professional liability carrier first. Cdtew (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve Smith: Steve, I believe I've reached the end of your current concerns/edits. Please let me know (a) if that's incorrect, and (b) if you see anything else needed to bring this to FA-status. Thanks much for your help! Cdtew (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per all of my above concerns being addressed. Steve Smith (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- Been meaning to review this (recusing myself from delegate duties) for the last week, will aim to do so later today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copyedited a bit so let me know if I've misunderstood anything. Outstanding points:
  • Nash had an illegitimate child, which some scholars identify as a son, and another illegitimate child by Hillsborough barmaid Ruth Jackson, for whom records are lacking. -- Taking into account the footnote, we have two illegitimate kids, one whose mother is unknown and one whose mother is known, and no certainty in either case as to the child's sex, though one's been reported as a boy and the other reported as a girl, yes? If so, I think there may be better ways to phrase it but let me know I'm on the right track first...
  • I've fixed that language to: "Nash had two children out of wedlock, one of which some scholars identify as a son.{{sfn|Reed|1991|p=358}} The mother of one of the children was reported as Hillsborough [[barmaid]] Ruth Jackson.{{sfn|Davis|1981|p=9|ps=, stating that the child with Ruth Jackson was a daughter}}{{sfn|Kars|2002|p=230, fn. 22}}{{sfn|Siry|2012|p=71}} Nash's son born out of wedlock was also named Francis Nash, and was possibly born in 1770 or 1771.{{sfn|Reed|1991|p=358}} The elder Nash provided Jackson with property west of Hillsborough, and several slaves.{{sfn|Siry|2012|p=71}}". I hope that clears it up -- I also recall Dank's prior comment on another review that I should avoid "illegitimate" as much as possible.
  • Okay, better, but re. "Nash's son born out of wedlock was also named Francis Nash, and was possibly born in 1770 or 1771", is this the same child who "some scholars identify as a son"? The way it reads it might (if there were only two kids out of wedlock, this must be the first mentioned) or might not be (we mentioned a possible son before, now we seem to be talking about a definite son, so maybe they're different). If we mean the same kid, I think we should combine this with the first mention of a possible son. In that case it could be something like "Nash had two children out of wedlock, one of which some scholars identify as a son also named Francis Nash, possibly born in 1770 or 1771". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ian Rose: I see what you mean; I adapted your fix, which is a correct interpretation. Cdtew (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure why we start the War of the Regulation and pre-Revolution politics section with a paragraph ending in events of September 1770 and then move back to events of 1768 early in the following paragraph -- Is there a reason I've missed for not describing things in chronological sequence?
  • Ah, shucks, you're right. Fixed the chronology.
  • After the British captured Philadelphia on September 11, 1777, Washington took the offensive and struck at the British forces in the Battle of Germantown. -- When you say "the British forces", is the implication that these were the British troops that captured Philly, as opposed to British forces in general?
  • Yes, generally the forces were those that were occupying the Philly area; corrected to clarify.
  • Nash is recognized as one of only ten Patriot generals who died during the American Revolutionary War -- I'm not sure "recognized" is necessary here, as it suggests that's all that made him notable. How about simply Nash is [or "was"] one of only ten Patriot generals who died during the American Revolutionary War?
  • Agreed. Done.
  • Aside from the above, prose, structure, coverage, referencing and image licensing look good to me, so leaning to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ian Rose: Many thanks for the review; I believe I've addressed all your concerns so far. Let me know if any others arise. Cdtew (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all of that, looks good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "born around the year 1742"
  • "including four brothers" -- did he have four brothers, or were four of his brothers born in Wales? I'm guessing it's the latter.
  • "one of which" -- perhaps you could replace which with whom.
  • "with property west" -- one property, or several properties? I may have missed something. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Sp33dyphil: Thank you for your review. I've addressed all but your last comment, with the following notes:
  • The sources don't indicate the distribution of the number of brothers and sisters Nash had, and apparently I'd misinterpreted a note about how many brothers were born in Wales; I've corrected to match the sources.
  • As for the property, there's no mention of whether it was one or more tracts. Given that the area in which the property was located was generally open country in the colonial era, I imagine it was one contiguous tract, but the sources don't clarify.
Please let me know if you see anything else that needs correcting or clarifying. Cdtew (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images and references check out. The article is sufficiently stable. My comments have been addressed. I am therefore happy to support. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:39, 21 October 2013 (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 10:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Little Tich[edit]

Nominator(s): CassiantoTalk 16:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The music hall comedian Little Tich was as well known for his music hall acts as he was for his physical disabilities. He used these "peculiarities" as an enhancement to his act which included his acrobatic and comedic "Big-Boot Dance" for which he wore boots with twenty-eight inch soles. He also created many comic characters including The Spanish Señora, The Gendarme and The Tax Collector, and was a popular performer in the annual Christmas pantomimes which were held at London's Theatre Royal, Drury Lane from 1888. I have worked on this for the last couple of months, and with peer review now archived, I think it is now ready for FA consideration. I hope you enjoy my efforts in trying to explain the complex life of the English music hall's biggest but smallest star. – CassiantoTalk 16:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I participated in the peer review (and – full disclosure – provided one image) and had my few comments satisfactorily dealt with. This is a fine article, fully matching all the FA criteria in my view. Once again Wikipedia knocks spots off the online competition: the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography gives Little Tich just over 1,000 words. This comprehensive Wikipedia article at 8,500 words – all of them to the point, balanced and well sourced – shows how it should be done. Bravo! Tim riley (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I was a fellow traveller from PR, where it was an absolute delight to read such a fine article. A subsequent read-through shows it has been strengthened even further since then, and I have no hesitation in giving my support to such a fine article. - SchroCat (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks chaps! Your comments at PR were fantastic and have helped a great deal. -- CassiantoTalk 19:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For clarity, where the reference is made to his blackface performances in his early career, perhaps this should be changed to say "It was here that he discovered the art of blackface, a type of entertainment widely performed around the British Isles at that time". I'm pretty sure that blackface is not widely practised in Britain these days! RomanSpa (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perish the thought! Now added thanks for that. -- CassiantoTalk 23:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments[edit]

Prose comments moved to talk

Support on prose and images (see below). Solid article. Easy for even me to follow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Nikkimaria[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • Why include both authors for Holloway but not Short or Tich? And why the different ordering in Sources?
    • Holloway only now given. In hindsight, I wish I had of gone for both authors with Tich! Oh well, consistency is the name of the game I suppose so I opted for the easier fix. Secondly, you may have to elaborate with the "ordering in Sources" as I am clearly to stupid to work this one out for myself. -- CassiantoTalk 18:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, compare "Holloway, Stanley; Richards, Dick" (last name first for both) with "Tich, Mary; Richard Findlater" (last name first then first name first). Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Gillies publisher laid out like that, or is there a missing space? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Crisco 1492[edit]

  • It's actually an "E." Sharp (image is a bit fuzzy) and could be father or son of the same name. Father died 1934, son in 1939. Added details to summary. GermanJoe (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See NPG source info (noted as published). "Rotary Photographic Co Ltd" is a postcard company. GermanJoe (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite right. Odd shape for a postcard, but the source does say it was published. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Little Tich and his Big Boots - 1900.ogv - Who did the sound? That most definitely can have it's own copyright. I don't doubt the video is free, but the sound is a question. Cameras from 1900 didn't have the ability yet.
  • Looking into this - probably easiest to rip the sound from the video and have it silent. The AFI lists the film as silent, so reverting our version back to silent is OK. - SchroCat (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loeba comments[edit]

Prose comments moved to talk

Support Thanks for acting on my comments, you've done a great job and this deserves to be a featured article. --Loeba (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great news. A wonderful review as always, and I am glad my responses have satisfied you enough in order to gain your support. -- CassiantoTalk 04:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, appears to have already had a very thorough going over. Loeba brings up some great points but I'm sure they'll be swiftly sorted. Excellent job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Doc. -- CassiantoTalk 17:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments[edit]

Prose comments moved to talk

Support: My issues have been dealt with appropriately and with sensible good humour. Happy to support for FA. Brianboulton (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your invested time Brian. As always, I thoroughly enjoyed responding to your comments and to have your support is much appreciated. -- CassiantoTalk 04:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I commented at some length at the PR, and have seen nothing but improvements here. I am happy to support, presuming that all Brianboulton's comments are addressed. Nice work, as usual. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sarastro for your excellent comments at the PR. These have helped improve the article no end. -- CassiantoTalk 04:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GermanJoe comments[edit]

Prose comments moved to talk

Support: Having commented during the very constructive PR, the article has been improved even more and is another great read about music hall comedy. Prose, structure, images and sources are well within FA-guidelines. GermanJoe (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help at PR and your continued support during this FAC Joe. -- CassiantoTalk 04:24, 15 October 2013 (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 10:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]

24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has undergone significant expansion and improvement via GAN and MILHIST ACR in the last couple of months, and I consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment

Probably because I've just read the other FAC on an SS division, I'm a bit surprised at how short this article is. Is there a lack of detailed sources for the unit? There are some somewhat large leaps in its story, particularly in the expansion section. Ranger Steve Talk 21:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, all the details available from the listed sources are included. Kaltenegger is the most detailed source available, to my knowledge. Given it was a battalion or brigade for most of its existence, it is probably not all that surprising that there is not a huge amount of detail regarding its operations as a division, and of course, that goes double for the periods when it was a smaller unit/formation. This is the fourth SS Mountain division article I have brought to FAC, and I have been conscious of its length when compared to the other articles (13th, 21st, 23rd), but we can only include the detail that is available. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images are both fine, captions are good. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments: This looks like a great article, and I have the following things to say.
  • In the infobox, 1944–1945 should be changed to 1944–45 per MOS:YEAR.
  • Done.
  • Throughout the article, "Waffen-SS" is written as "Waffen-SS". Why is this?
  • MOS:FOREIGN states that non-loanwords are italicised as foreign words not yet in everyday use in non-specialized English. There was no consensus when discuss at MILHIST Talk, so I have applied the suggested MOS rule of thumb (using the Merriam-Webster dictionary), which does not list Waffen, but does list SS. Thus Waffen is italicised and SS is not.
  • Are "anti-partisan duties" and Anti-partisan operations the same thing? If so, they should be linked at first mentioned in the article.
  • In the infobox, "anti-partisan operations" is written as "anti-Partisan operations", with the "P" in "Partisan" being capitalized. In other parts of the article, the "P" is not capitalized. The article should be consistent in its presentation of this term.
  • Fixed.
  • Because it is a template and is needed for accessibility reasons, I believe this is ok.

Otherwise, the article looks good. Great work! 23 editor (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review, 23!

Comments

  • Is there a reason as to why the division only reached half of its intended size?
  • Am reviewing the sources to see if it is mentioned. Likely due to the war going so poorly for the Germans, but I'll report back once I've checked.
Any updates? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 09:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've added some clarification. The source uses words to the effect that it "proved impossible" to recruit up to its authorised strength. Kaltenegger doesn't say why it "proved impossible", unfortunately. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the ranks under "Commanders" not italicized while the others throughout the article are? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Thanks.
Support -- Although the article is quite short, I have no objections to an FA promotion. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by MisterBee1966

  • You wrote "In mid-1942, the Waffen-SS formed a company intended for anti-partisan operations in the rugged and high-altitude border region between Italy, Austria and Yugoslavia known as the Karst". The name "Karst", to my knowledge, denotes a geological formation (which can be found in many places) and is not a particular region between Italy, Austria and Yugoslavia. Hans Brandt, a doctor in geology, was a "Karst" researcher. Please clarify. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, "karst topography" got its name from the German word for this region, per this. It is also referred to as the "Karst Plateau", but "Karst" with a capital is also used widely. Not sure what you want me to clarify? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what I want is a better explanation of the namesake. Maybe linking to Karst Plateau would work better. You have it linked in the lead but when trying to understand the namesake it confused me. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To improve explanation of the namesake Karstjäger further may I suggest adding a sentence like: "The name Karstjäger was derived from the concatenation of Karst, denoting the region of operations, and Jäger, the German military term for light infantry." Just a suggestion MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Since you tell us how many battalions are in the artillery regiment, add how many are in the Gebirgsjäger Regiments.
    • Done.
  • I believe that there's a new book out on the division in Italian if you can read that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I'll be on the look out for it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • My mistake, it's in French, ISBN 2840482568. I'm troubled by the lack of info on this unit's combat operations. I understand that this is a very obscure unit, for which material isn't readily available, but for FA I'd need to see something detailing what it did in combat. The 21st Division article at least gave me a sense of that. I'm not going to oppose, but I don't think that this article meets the criteria for completeness.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it is in both languages, although one version appears to have two authors. I have some concerns about the scholarly credentials of the author(s) and [publisher on that one. The publishers appear to be "memoirs" publishers, and I can't find the book cited in Google Scholar. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I managed to find a bit more in Kaltenegger in relation to battalion-level operations, and have added that. Here is the additional material. What do you think? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Much better, although I think that your qualms over the book are mistaken. There aren't very many academics doing research on Waffen-SS units, so I'm not at all surprised that neither author is an academic nor the book cited in Google Scholar. So I don't really think that either is a strike against them. And Heimdal is a major French military history publisher, I have a couple of their books myself, although they do tend to publish more illustrated books as those sell better than textual material. The same could be said of Schiffer in the US, but still they published solid books on the 13th and 14th Waffen-SS divisions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check: All images are legitimately in the public domain, and all required information is present. – Quadell (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks: I was able to check the sources for citations 3a, 6, 8, and 18a, and every time I found the statement fully supported by the source, with no plagiarism or close paraphrasing. (But I think you meant page 4 for ref 18a, not page 5.) – Quadell (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- just a format/structure thingie but the second para under Origin and the sole para under Expansion are pretty long, especially the former; suggest you split... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:06, 18 October 2013 (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 10:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third article on the six Japanese carriers that attacked Pearl Harbor to make it to FAC thus far. Hiryu was completed in the late 1930s and briefly participated in the 2nd Sino-Japanese War and the occupation of French IndoChina before the start of the Pacific War. She participated in most of the early carrier operations of that war before being sunk during the Battle of Midway. The article recently passed a thorough MilHist A-class review and should meet the FAC criteria. I look forward to working with reviewers to correct any weaknesses that they might identify.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm not sure what the established protocol is for these kinds of pages, but why are the measurements for a Japanese aircraft carrier in American units (feet, inches, etc.). Seems kind of strange to have it that way, especially since I believe Japan had adopted the metric system 50 years before this carrier was built. Mattximus (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, normally I do just that and can't remember why I didn't. Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Why does the imperial measurement of length, beam, and draft vary between text and infobox?
    • Good catch, fixed.
  • Missing bibliographic info for Chesneau 1980
    • Added.
  • Check order of authors for Hata
    • Given as per the book, presumably in order of contribution rather than alphabetical.
      • Which order is per the book, the one in short cites or the one in bibliography? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zim or Zimm? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed, thanks for reviewing the article for all of these nits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (there has a lot to be done)

  • Why is the section about Midway nearly half as long as the whole article, when there is an own article about the battle and that even mentioned as the main article? You could and should easily eliminate more than half of the text in that section.
    • What we've got is a detailed account of everything that the ship or its aircraft did during the battle. She was the longest-surviving Japanese carrier during the battle and did more than the others. Midway is exceedingly well documented and I've used all that info here. So, no, it couldn't be shorted.
  • Why does the Midway-section have a Main article-cap but the Indian Ocean Raid and Pearl Harbor-sections haven't?
    • Good idea. Added.
  • Nearly two and a half years of active war service are dealt in seven sentences and after that you have this huge texts about only seven months. Seems a little Anglo-Americancentric.
    • Reflects the limited info on the ship's very limited participation in the Sino-Japanese War and her far more active participation in the Pacific War.

All in all the article is as the early IJN Aircraft Carriers were: top heavy with the Pacific War and American sources (only one japanese author about a japanese carrier? Aren't there any more who published in English?) but has, with you as its main author, the potential for great improvement. --Bomzibar (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your vote of confidence, but, sadly, there's been very limited information on Japanese carriers translated into English in the last few decades. I expect that rather more's been published in Japanese, but really couldn't say, aside from a few picture books. But look more closely at the bibliography, you'll find three books with Japanese authors or co-authors; I do the best I can with what's available. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • From my work on Japanese World War II-related topics, I can confirm Sturmvogel's comment above. There isn't even a genuinely comprehensive history of the IJN in the war (most books on the topic peter out after about early 1943 and compress the remainder of the war into some sketchy summary chapters focused mainly on the handful of major battles). Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Maralia - I made a couple edits to link on first mention, tweak punctuation in some very long sentences, etc. A few remaining issues:

  • I see both Kate and "Kate", as well as "Val".
    • Fixed the issue with the Kate, but couldn't find anything wrong with Val.
  • Ditto inconsistency between 'Zeroes" and 'Zeros'.
    • Done.
  • These two sentences look like they're written from Soryu's perspective:
  • "From a position 230 nautical miles (430 km; 260 mi) north of Oahu, Sōryū and the other five carriers launched two waves of aircraft on the morning of 8 December 1941."
  • "While at Hashirajima, Sōryū's air group was based ashore at Tomitaka Airfield, near Saiki, Ōita, and conducted flight and weapons training with the other First Air Fleet carrier units."
  • Stupid computer not noticing these copy-paste issues.
  • "Hiryū had eight Zeros aloft, along with 12 more from the other carriers and all told they accounted for five of the British bombers for the loss of one of Hiryū's Zeros." - This sentence is wonky; the parenthetical 'along with 12 more from the other carriers' is missing an ending comma, but that would obfuscate the subject of the subsequent independent clause. Perhaps 'collectively' would be an improvement over 'all told': "Hiryu had eight Zeros aloft; joined by 12 from the other carriers, they collectively accounted for..."

Thanks for a good read. Maralia (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Reviewed the article for A & I think its ready for promotion. Kirk (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and apparent comprehensiveness, though I am not a military scholar. I do have a few suggestions. Sorry to leave this so long:

  • Lede:
  • Footnote 1. I suggest that you, rather than footnoting the statement about which practice the article will follow, that you set the sources out following the sentence, with a "See, e.g." preceding. Personally, I do not footnote in notes, because it is two jumps for the reader and because the numbering gets sort of out of order.
      • I cite every footnote as the easiest way to source the info. I prefer this method over yours because sometimes I use the same cite in the main body and in the footnote.
  • " participated in the Battle of Midway" I don't like participated, it is much too passive. Any objection to "fought" or a similar term?
  • That usage is very common in many military histories dealing with individual ships, aircraft or weapons, but I was taken to task many, many moon ago by a reviewer who wondered why I was personifying the ship and giving it agency rather than to the crew. It might read a bit like passive voice, but I rather like zhe point.
  • Armament
  • "the port-side director was positioned below flight deck level on the port side" Perhaps delete "on the port side" or at least change to "on that side"? Mildly redundant.
    • Indeed.
  • "This was the standard Japanese light AA gun" I would specify the gun instead of saying "this", as you've been sidetracked talking about the mounts.
  • Good idea.
  • Armor
  • Would anything be gained by saying what the ship's deck was made of? I'd imagine steel but perhaps the type of steel would be interesting (not my field, just suggesting)
  • I wish I knew what type of steel it was, but none of my sources mention that.
  • Construction/service
  • "the Japanese occupation of northern Indochina" as in the invasion part or the ruling against the will of the locals part?
  • Good catch, the actual invasion.
  • Kidu Butai" is linked when it was mentioned unlinked in the prior section and given a somewhat different description.
  • Fixed.
  • Indian Ocean raid
  • "although the fighters from the other carriers also made claims" This information seems like it should be next to the claims made by Hiryū's fighters.
  • Agreed.
  • MIdway
  • Engrossing reading, I must say.
  • "two Wildcats who shot down one torpedo bomber" I'm not certain of your use of "who" here when you are, it seems, generally using "that" to describe planes.
  • How about "which" instead?
  • "23 degrees 17 minutes later" as minutes is also a subdivision of degrees, suggest changing 17 to seventeen, and it looks better anyway.
  • Moved "17 minutes later" to the beginning of the sentence.
  • " thirteen Zeros on CAP (a composite force of survivors from the other carriers)" You've been mentioning CAP for quite some time, why explain it now?
  • While each carrier had contributed fighters to the CAP throughout the battle, at this point the CAP was formed by aircraft flying from Hiryu that had originally been based on the other, sunken, carriers.
  • "The fires were severe enough that the remaining American aircraft attacked the other ships escorting Hiryū," presumably because they deemed the carrier sunk? Consider adding the reason.
  • Done. Always glad to have non-specialist eyes on a ship article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. After reading of the swath of destruction this vessel left in its path, I understand why the loss of four of them was such a blow to the Japanese.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your responses seem satisfactory to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review
    • File:Hiryu burning.jpg - the description says this photo was taken by a plane from Hosho, but the license tag says it's a USN photo. The NHHC page states that it was a "Donation of Kazutoshi Hando, 1970", so it needs to be changed to the standard Japanese license.
      • I've changed it to the Japanese license and added the US PD-URAA license as well as I believe it still needs a US license. Thanks for getting to this so quickly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks good to go now, and no problem. Parsecboy (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It'd also be PD in the US because the NHHC considers such donations to be in the PD. I had an email saying this, but I think it was on my university email, which is now defunct. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • All other photos are demonstrably PD in Japan and the US. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2013 (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 10:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC) [10].[reply]

21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian)[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) and 23 editor (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because it has undergone both a GAN and MILHIST A-Class review in the past several months and we believe it meets FA criteria. We are available to respond to and address all positive criticism and objections. Thank you, 23 editor (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Provisional Support

This is a great little article about what was clearly a chaotic formation. I think it's very well written and put together and will easily meet FA with a few little tweaks. I'd like to see some clarification on a few points, but I'll list them tomorrow (I'm typing this on an iPad and it isn't easy!). Nice work. Ranger Steve Talk 20:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, time has not been on my side lately, and I'm about to go away for 2 weeks without internet access. My support stiull stands, my issues are merely language/understanding clarifications and not anything serious. If this is still open when I get back, I'll add them here. Ranger Steve Talk 10:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • How are you ordering books by the same author in References?
  • Be consistent in when you provide states/countries for publisher locations. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Images appropriately licensed.
  • Unless you mean two different people, I think that "was" should be used here: A Wehrmacht plenipotentiary general, and a special representative of Heinrich Himmler, SS-Brigadeführer und Generalmajor der Waffen-SS und Polizei Josef Fitzthum, were based in the Albanian capital of Tirana
  • two people, I have clarified.
  • So the Balli Kombëtar were formed by the Italians? I think a sentence of explanation as to how they differed from the police and army is in order to orient the reader.
  • done.
  • The formation section seems to contradict itself by talking about the difficulties in recruiting Kosovar Albanians, so Himmler want to expand the pool of available manpower, but then says that the bulk of the recruits were Kosovars.
  • It was confusing, it was really about the difficulties the Partisans were having recruiting the Kosovars, not a difficulty the Germans were having. Thanks.
  • Probably ought to add the Sturmgeschütz Abt. to the order of battle.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nafziger doesn't mention an assault gun battalion on the ORBAT, but there clearly was one in the Kampfgruppe. I can only assume the assault gun battalion was added (possibly from corps or army troops) after the division was officially disbanded.
  • I'm not sure exactly where it came from as information is scanty. Just a point of advice, Nafziger isn't the most reliable and should be checked against other sources whenever possible. Georg Tessin's Truppen und Verbände der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS (in 15 volumes) is probably the most reliable general source on German units barring individual unit histories.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nafziger lists Tessin and the other key ORBAT source, Mueller-Hillebrand, Das Heer l933-l945, l956 Vol I &II, Verband der Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen SS l939-l945 as its sources, so I'm pretty relaxed about this particular Nafziger ORBAT. Not to say there isn't any transcription errors, but there is no mention of the assault gun battalion until after the division was disbanded. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: Great! Thanks for the comments. 23 editor (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Comments - Dank (push to talk)

  • "were encouraged to open Albanian language schools, something that had been banned by the Yugoslav government": If you're saying that Albanian language schools had been banned, then it's better to say that: "were encouraged to open Albanian language schools, which had been banned by the Yugoslav government"
    • Done.
  • "Kosovo Albanians then sought retribution against Kosovo Serbs as they were angered by the presence of Serb and Montenegrin settlers in the region and by the oppression that Albanians had experienced at the hands of the Serbs during the Balkan Wars, the First World War, and while the area was part of Yugoslavia." Garner's and other style guides recommend against "as" here since it could be read as something like "when". Also, the last bit is a nonparallel series. One possibility: "Kosovo Albanians then sought retribution against Kosovo Serbs for Serbian settlement in the region and for the oppression that Albanians had experienced at the hands of the Serbs during the Balkan Wars and the First World War, and under Yugoslav rule."
    • Done.
  • "neighbors": neighbours
    • Done.
  • "Himmler saw the Muslim Albanians as a potential source of manpower in Germany's war against the Yugoslav Partisans, due to the difficulties experienced by the Partisans in recruiting Kosovo Albanians to join their ranks.": I sympathize; this use of "due to" is common in both journalistic and scholarly writing. I'm not a linguistic purist, but I hope that WP:Checklist#because will give you an idea of some of the rat's nest of problems that arise from cause-and-effect words. And there are plenty of other misuses ... these terms sometimes obscure the fact that the text is verbose, vague, deceptive, redundant, or intellectually lazy, and sometimes all five. I find it's a useful rule of thumb in my own writing to omit any of those terms when I can do so without loss of clarity ... and doing so gives a gain of clarity, more often than not. Likewise, later on, instead of "which resulted in numerous atrocities. As a result, the Germans had to disarm ...", I recommend "and committed numerous atrocities. The Germans had to disarm ...". Instead of "many Albanians deserted, with some of the desertions resulting from attacks by Serb Partisans on areas northeast of Gusinje. As a result, Army Group E claimed that the division had ...", go with: "many Albanians deserted, some after Serb Partisan attacks on areas northeast of Gusinje. Army Group E claimed that desertions showed that the division had" [if it's accurate that the claim was attributed specifically to the desertions].
    • These specific ones are done, will look through for more. Thanks.
  • "The Germans found that Kosovo Albanians were more cooperative than Albanians in Albania itself, mainly because they feared a return to Yugoslav rule. Consequently, many of the division's recruits were Albanians from Kosovo.": Same here ... you have two cause-and-effect words ("because" and "consequently"), and you don't need either of them: "Germans divisions recruited more Albanians [is this right? I don't know how many "many" is] from Kosovo than from Albania itself, finding ..."
    • Done.
  • "Most, or all": Most or all. ("Most, or all ..." means something different.)
    • Done.
  • "3,000–25,000 Kosovo Albanians": Don't start sentences with numerals, per WP:NUMERAL.
    • Done.
  • "reorganized": The "Oxford -ize" is fine in BritEng if you're consistent ... you are, in this article.
    • One of the outcomes of collaboration on articles... We'll leave it as is I think.
  • "this claim has been refuted": When I read this, I usually wonder who believes the claim has been refuted ... if that's the consensus of historians, that's fine, but if it's you, that's OR.
    • I think the most accurate description is "challenged", rather than "refuted". The claim may be a bit fringish, but I think "refuted" is too strong. Changed to "challenged".
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Generally fine writing, and you guys do a good job taking reviewer comments on board. - Dank (push to talk) 01:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Dan. All of the above are now done. Will look for any remaining cause and effect issues. Always get something out of your prose (and other) comments. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Support Thanks to 23 editor's notification on a related project's talk page, I learned about this FA candidate and read a very interesting article. It is comprehensive, well-written, and well-researched. I have two observations:

    • ... and was intended to protect ethnic Albania but remain under German control. I suppose "ethnic Albania" (?) was inadvertently typed instead of "ethnic Albanians".
    • ... requested the expansion of the borders of the puppet state of Albania. Maybe (I leave to the nominators) it could be stated here that the requested expansion was at the expense of Serbia and Montenegro. Vladimir (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Vladimir. Thanks for reviewing the article. In response to your observations, 1) "ethnic Albania" is another way of saying "Greater Albania" 2) Good point, I'll add at whose expense the territorial expansion was. Regards, 23 editor (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can't do #2 because the source doesn't say the expansion would have been at the expense of Serbia and Montenegro (it could have been at the expense of Macedonia, too; besides, these regions were all part of Yugoslavia anyway). 23 editor (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The statement #2 is followed by ref 11, "Tomasevich 2001, p. 153", which says: He also asked for the rectification of existing Albanian borders with Serbia and Montenegro. Vladimir (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)  Done[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, 14 October 2013 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Pinniped[edit]

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) & Sasata (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that after a few months of Sasata and I working on comprehensiveness, prose and sourcing and after a GA by Casliber, it is at least within striking distance of FA. LittleJerry (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural cmt: In future pls use {{subst:FAC}} when initiating a nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2013 (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, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby question why isn't this article just named "seal" (disambiguated appropriately)?—indopug (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pinniped is the preferred term. LittleJerry (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically, pinnipeds are a set of animals that include walruses, sea lions, and seals. Mattximus (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by Jim well done for tackling this major topic. Looks very comprehensive, but a few comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although Sasata has fixed a few, there are still plenty of duplinks, I suggest you run the script
  • I've now removed all expect one left in for strategic reasons. Sasata (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check that "However" is always justified
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clade—link in line 1 of lead
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1880 monograph.—worth giving title in the text?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Phocidae belongs—"belong"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • pelage—what's wrong with "fur"?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • date 18–16 mya—"date to"?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • thick as several inches—jars a bit when metric is given priority throughout the rest of this scientific article
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otariids rely on the movements of their heads and necks more than its hind-flippers—mixed number
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pinniped ear is adapted for hearing underwater, where they can hear—subject is singular "ear"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • hearing is somewhat reduced in pinnipeds than in many terrestrial mammals—"compared" to rather than "than"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before diving, pinnipeds... —lots of collapsing in this para, vary a bit
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • young nurses upside down—"suckle" might be better here
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have used two different styles to indicate foreign language refs
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a mixture of styles for refs with multiple initials (A.B. and A. B.) in at least ref 109
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No further queries, supporting above now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review (& support)! Sasata (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK mostly OK (CC, PD-NOAA, PD-age, OTRS, Flickr with no problems). Sources and authors provided. Just 1 issue (and 2 requests):

Replaced. LittleJerry (talk)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Depka.jpg - added English translation for description, please check (is it still alive? I am not sure, what happened in this image). (maybe a better image can be found)
Not sure what happened. LittleJerry (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a big deal, but then it's probably not the best image to illustrate "human threats to pinnipeds". Suggest to keep looking for possible improvements.
Added more text to make it more relevant to the section. LittleJerry (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox collage is OK - all contained images checked. GermanJoe (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Quadell[edit]

Resolved issues
Overall
  • Minor MOS-checks: There are no problems with duplicate links or links to disambiguation pages. The infobox and cladogram look fine. All images seem appropriate to their sections, and all captions are appropriate and correctly formatted (with one minor point below). Thanks to GermanJoe for the image check. It's a shame to just have a single note, but it's fine. I can find no problems with the existing entries in the bibliography or the list of external links.
  • I'm rather amazed at the lack of overlinking in an article with this many wikilinks; the only overlinked candidates I can see are pebble and bombs, and those are marginal.
  • Some sentence-fragment captions seem to use a "headline" format that omits indefinate articles ("Harp seal mother nursing pup", "Harbor seal hauled out on rock"), while others use a definite or indefinite article in the predicate ("Leopard seal capturing an emperor penguin", "Performing sea lions being fed at the Memphis Zoo"). In my personal opinion, it would be best to have all sentence-fragment captions use articles wherever they would be appropriate in a complete sentence ("A harp seal mother nursing a pup", "A leopard seal capturing an emperor penguin"), but any consistent format will do.
  • Is it correct to cite Renouf in Renouf (cite #57)? I just haven't run into this before, and I'm unsure the best way to handle it. Would it be better to just say "Renouf (1991), p. 373"? Outside opinions would be welcome here.
  • While six books are in the bibliography, most books are actually listed in the references. (#9, #26, #64, #70, #91, #94, #114, #129, #131, #132, and #154). Why? Wouldn't it be better to move these down to the bibliography?
  • The books in the bibliography have multiple citations to different pages (i.e. short citations), whereas the books listed in the ref list are cited to only a single page (or page range). No need to make the reader look for the citation twice if not necessary. Sasata (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly. (Renouf is just used once.) Anyway, if no other reviewer finds it problematic, then it's probably fine. (I'm still not 100% sure which reference format standardizations are mandatory and which aren't.) – Quadell (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't realized Renouf was only used once ... it's been removed from the bibliography now. Sasata (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have performed spotchecks on several sources, and in every case I found the statements fully supported by the sources without plagiarism.
  • The organization seems appropriate, and all aspects of the topic seem to be covered by the article. Nearly all problems are minor proofreading concerns, which I detail below. (By far, the most common problem is the ommision of a comma before a coordinating conjunction that is used to join independent clauses. Examples below will make this clear.)
Lead (all resolved)
  • The lead is of an appropriate length, and it effectively sums up all secions of the article. Well done.
  • Commas are needed after "propel themselves through the water", "both air and water", and "typically polygynous".
  • My own stylistic preferences, which I feel obligated to mention, even though they're not obstacles to Featured status:
    • Due to the frequency of parentheses in the lead, I think "which is also the largest carnivoran" would be better outside parentheses.
    • I strongly prefer "tend toward" over the unprofessional-sounding "tend towards", but I confess the "towards" formulation is common and has pedigree.
    • Since "bycatching" is a term many aren't familiar with, and looks like "by catching", this phrase may sound confusing: "pinnipeds are also threatened by conflicts with local people, bycatching and marine pollution". I think it would be clearer to say "pinnipeds also face threats from bycatching, marine pollution and conflicts with local people."
  • I have changed all of these per your suggestions. Sasata (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy (all resolved)
  • Capitalize "of" in "of the three extant families"
  • Commas are needed after "in the superfamily Otarioidea", "extends between the nasal bones", "divided by a 'secondary spine'", and "relies on its hind-flippers for locomotion"
  • It should be a colon instead of a comma after "Otariids consist of two types". And it would be better to use a colon after "Odobenidae consists of only one living member", instead of a comma.
  • "Five genera and species of sea lion are known to exist" is unclear. It appears you left out a number. Seven?
  • There should be an "an" in front of "everted pelvic bone".
  • It sounds as if the pinnipeds are unable to consider themselves subspecies in the clause "five of the latter lack sufficient support to conclusively consider them as subspecies." One correct rewording would be "five of the latter lack sufficient support to be conclusively considered subspecies."
  • My own stylistic preferences, which I feel obligated to mention (MOSP-WIFOTM):
    • Consider "and in 1811 he gave the name Pinnipedia to both a family and an order" as a possibility. (Less choppy from commas)
    • I find "turning their hind-flippers forward" better than "turning their hind-flippers forwards"
    • Consider using a semicolon instead of a comma after "which consists of the elephant seals, monk seals and lobodontine seals"
    • Consider the sentence "They recommend that the genus Arctocephalus should be limited to Arctocephalus pusillus, and resurrected the name Arctophoca for several species and subspecies formerly placed in Arctocephalus." The "should" is redundant, since it's already a recommendation. Further, it is difficult for the reader to figure out the subject of "resurrected". I would reword the entire sentence as "They recommend that the genus Arctocephalus be limited to Arctocephalus pusillus, and they resurrected the name Arctophoca for several species and subspecies formerly placed in Arctocephalus."
  • I agree with your stylistic preferences, and have tweaked the prose accordingly in this section. Sasata (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Evolutionary history (all resolved)
  • "Its teeth were adapted for shearing (like terrestrial carnivorans) and may have stayed near shore more often." I suspect its teeth stayed near the shore about as often as its mouth did. :) Instead, use "(like terrestrial carnivorans), and it may have".
  • The past tense of "shrink" is "shrank", not "shrunk".
  • Commas are needed after "both the fore-flippers and hind-flippers", "Zalophus, Eumetopias and Otaria diverged next", "have existed since at least 15 mya", and "as the Paratethys shrunk/shrank".
  • You define mya twice in the same paragraph. Once is fine.
  • MOSP-WIFOTM:
    • I find this confusing: "Enaliarctos of late Oligocene/early Miocene (27–18 million years ago) California closely resembled...". How about this? "Enaliarctos, a fossil species from late Oligocene/early Miocene (27–18 million years ago) California, closely resembled..."
    • In the same sentence, I find the comma structure confusing. How about this? "...resembled modern pinnipeds; it was fully aquatic with a flexible spine, and its limbs were modified into flippers."
    • Consider surrounding "Prototaria of Japan and Proneotherium of Oregon" with em dashes (which you use elsewhere) instead of commas.
Anatomy and physiology (all resolved)
  • You almost always omit the serial comma, but use one in "Pinniped skulls have large eye orbits, short snouts, and a constricted interorbital region."
  • Same with the sentence beginning "Compared to other carnivorans..." (although you might argue that comma is needed for clarity).
  • I think there's a typo in "the thick necks of manes of otariids". Should that be "necks and manes"?
  • There is a misplaced modifier in "In species that live on ice, young pups have thicker coats than adults, known as lanugo." After all, the adults are not known as lanugo. There are various ways to fix this, but my favorite would be to mention lanugo only in the next sentence: "The individual hairs on the coat, known as lanugo, ..."
  • A comma is needed after "thin layer of blubber".
  • MOSP-WIFOTM:
    • I would reword "Overall, they tend to be larger than other carnivorans (the southern elephant seal is the largest carnivoran)" to "Overall, they tend to be larger than other carnivorans; the southern elephant seal is the largest carnivoran."
    • The sentence starting "Some species like ribbon seals" could be confusing. I would reword as "Some species, such as ribbon seals, ringed seals and leopard seals, have ..."
    • Since "make up" can mean so many things, I would use "It can constitute up to 50% of a pinniped's body weight" or "It can comprise".
    • In the very next sentence, I would replace "make up" with "compensate" (before "for this with their thick lanugos").
    • The sentence beginning "Pups are born with a thin layer of blubber" would be clearer if it said "Pups are born with only a thin layer of blubber", so that the reader understands what is being made up for.
Locomotion (all resolved)
  • Commas are needed after "Seals are more agile and flexible", "Fore-flipper movement is not continuous", and "easier for phocids on ice".
  • You say "otariids, like the California sea lion, are capable of", but only some otariids are capable of such a turn, correct? (The source only supports "some".) If so, you should say "some otariids, such as the California sea lion, are capable of". (I replaced "like" with "such as", since the California sea lion is not just like an otariid; it is one.)
  • MOSP-WIFOTM:
    • "They tend to be slower swimmers" would be clearer as "Pinnipeds tend to be slower swimmers", since elbows and ankles were most recently mentioned.
    • Should "kn" be linked to Knot (unit) on first use?
    • In "are capable of bending their necks backwards far enough to reach their hind-flippers and can make dorsal turns", the "can" is so far from the subject that it could be unclear. Would this work? "to reach their hind-flippers, allowing them tomake dorsal turns"
    • Unlike the entire article up to this point, the second paragraph of "Locomotion" is full of very short sentences. Can you spice up the prose a bit here?
Excellent. – Quadell (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Senses (all resolved)
  • Commas are needed after "The lens is mostly spherical", "the pupil is typically pear-shaped", "dilation varies little", "reduced in bright light", "have limited color vision", and "as many sound frequencies as humans"
  • "Deep-diving", not "deep- diving".
  • MOSP-WIFOTM:
    • You say "In species like harbor seals and California sea lions, which live in shallow water, dilation varies little". I think this would be clearer as "In species that live in shallow water, such as harbor seals and California sea lions, dilation varies little".
    • "This helps them see in darkness" would be clearer as "This helps them see in virtual darkness" or "in low-light conditions."
    • ""their hearing sensitivity is overall weaker" would be better as "their hearing sensitivity is weaker overall".
    • Consider surrounding "the harbor seal, California sea lion and northern elephant seal" with em dashes (which you use elsewhere) instead of commas.
    • I think a semicolon would be better between "play a role in navigation" and "spotted seals appear".
Diving adaptations, Thermoregulation, and Sleep (all resolved)
  • "Veins containing cool blood from the body extremities surround an artery with warm blood received from the core of the body" isn't clear. "An artery" implies just one. Should it be "each artery"? It also sounds as if the veins surround the artery with warm blood, but the artery contains the warm blood. It needs to be reworded in some way.
Perfect! – Quadell (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOSP-WIFOTM:
    • Consider the sentence "While overemptying of the lungs in humans classifies as a lung disease and terrestrial mammals are in general unable to empty their lungs, pinnipeds can reinflate their lungs even after complete respiratory collapse." It's not incorrect -- it uses a structure of "While [independent clause] and [independent clause], [independent clause]" -- but it still feels awkward to me. Personally, I don't find the human lung disease information particularly relevant. I would probably reword it as "While terrestrial mammals are generally unable to empty their lungs, pinnipeds can reinflate their lungs even after complete respiratory collapse." It's easy to parse, and gives all important information.
    • I would say "seals can tolerate large amounts of lactic acid" instead of "they can tolerate large amounts of lactic acid", since "they" is uncertain.
    • I would change "which adds a layer" to "adding a layer".
Fixed all. LittleJerry (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Distribution and habitat (all resolved)
  • A comma is needed after "Most species inhabit coastal areas".
  • You say "The Baikal seal is the only freshwater species, though two subspecies of ringed seals live in landlocked lakes in Russia close to the Baltic sea." If these are freshwater lakes, then it would be best to specify this. (If they are not, then I don't understand the sentence.)
  • Does the last sentence of this section mean the species live on fast ice or pack ice? I'm not sure how they "utilize" it.
  • MOSP-WIFOTM:
    • Although it's not incorrect, I would reword "Two species, the Caspian seal and Baikal seal, are found in large landlocked bodies of water (the Caspian Sea and Lake Baikal respectively)" as "The Caspian seal and Baikal seal are found in large landlocked bodies of water (the Caspian Sea and Lake Baikal, respectively)."
    • Due to the preponderance of "ands" and "ors", I would reword the penultimate sentence as "Pinnipeds may move further inland and rest in sand dunes or vegetation, and may even climb steep cliffs."
Fixed all. LittleJerry (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Behavior and life history (all resolved)
  • Both here and in the lead, you mention "diving at depths of so-and-so". It seems to me that "diving to depths of so-and-so" would be more correct, but I'm neither a diver nor a marine biologist. Is "at" a common preposition to use in this phrasing? If not, consider replacing with "to".
  • A comma is needed after "Walruses do not often dive very deep".
  • "Female typically mature" should be "Females typically mature"
  • MOSP-WIFOTM:
    • I would personally prefer "like El Niño or changes in ice cover" over "like El Niño and changes in ice cover".
    • Similarly, I would prefer "during foraging or to avoid predators" over "during foraging and to avoid predators".
    • In my opinion, "the age at which..." is better than "the age in which a pinniped sexually matures".
Fixed all. LittleJerry (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Foraging and predation (all resolved)
  • The 13-year-old boy in me wants you to know that the photo of a steller seal killing a sturgeon is epic. He also thinks that any article that includes the claim "an adult walrus is capable of killing polar bears" deserves to be featured on that basis alone.
  • Commas are needed after "they mostly feed on fish and cephalopods", "more commonly taken by orcas", "The prey often escapes", "have injuries in the hindquarters", and "pups of some fur seal species".
  • Even though you usually omit the serial comma, I think you need a comma after "which specialize on squid" just to avoid confusion about who is eating whom.
  • "bays and rivers", rather than "bays and river"
  • This sentence is confusing: "They are typically hunted by whales in groups of 10 or less but are occasionally hunted by lone individuals or groups of 2–30." (At first it's unclear whether the whales or the seals are in groups. Further, a group of 7 whales is both a group "of 10 or less" and also a group "of 2-30".) If I'm correct in your meaning, you might choose to reword it like this: "They are typically hunted by groups of 10 or fewer whales, but they are occasionally hunted larger groups or by lone individuals."
  • The comma after "another major predator of pinnipeds" is not correct. Perhaps an em dash would work?
  • "was well as active stalking" should be "as well as active stalking".
  • MOSP-WIFOTM:
    • I think it would be clearer if you said "The former behavior is typical when hunting..." rather than "The former behavior is typical with...".
    • "While pinnipeds mostly hunt in the water" would be clearer than "While species mostly hunt in the water"
Fixed all. LittleJerry (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed a few remaining stragglers. Hope that's okay. – Quadell (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reproductive behavior (all resolved)
  • "Subadult elephants seals will sneak into female clusters and try to blend in by pulling in their noses." That's adorable! (No change needed.)
  • Commas are needed after "breed on land are usually polygynous", "breeding sites change location each year", "natural breaks in the substrate", "South American sea lion and Australian sea lion", "mounted by an unwanted male", and "attracts other males to the scene".
  • Instead of "This dimorphism manifests itself as larger chests and necks, and longer canines and denser fur", it would be better to say "This dimorphism manifests itself in larger chests and necks, longer canines and denser fur".
  • MOSP-WIFOTM:
    • In my opinion, the sentence "The type of mating system depends on the substrate where mating takes place" is confusing and doesn't add anything to the paragraph. If the sentence were omitted, no information would be lost, and I feel the paragraph would scan better. (If the sentence is kept, I can't think of a way to reword it that would be less awkward.)
    • Instead of "Few islands are favorable for breeding and thus are particularly crowded", consider "Few islands are favorable for breeding, and those that are are particularly crowded."
    • Consider starting a new paragraph just before "Other seals, like the walrus and most phocids..."
Birth and parenting (all resolved)
  • There are a few subtle problems with the sentence "All species go through delayed implantation, which puts the embryo in suspended development for as long as a few weeks or several months before it is implanted in the uterus." (The subject for "puts" isn't clear, and I'm not sure it's the right word. Further, "as long as ... weeks or ... months" is logically troubling.) What would you think of this? "All species go through delayed implantation, wherein the embryo remains in suspended development for weeks or months before it is implanted in the uterus."
  • No comma is needed after "they learn how to dive".
  • A comma is needed after "with its head held up", and "inexperienced young as they learn to swim"
  • MOSP-WIFOTM:
    • "may last one day to two weeks depending on" would be a little better as "may last anywhere between a day and two weeks, depending on"
Communication and Intelligence (all resolved)
  • Commas are needed after "are more vocal on land" and "when patrolling under the ice"
  • MOSP-WIFOTM:
    • "are comparable to songs (like those of birds and whales)" would be better as "are comparable to birdsongs and whalesongs".
    • I think it would be better to link Contact call at the words "mother-pup attraction calls", rather than at "contact".
Cultural depictions and In captivity (all resolved)
  • "but is recused by her father" was supposed to be "but is rescued by her father", I think.
  • In "One of the earliest Ancient Greek coins depicted", it should be "depicts", so long as at least one of the coins still exists.
  • A comma is needed after "depicted/depicts the head of a seal" and "that have evolved to be migratory".
  • Since not all European zoos or U.S. zoos have the same format, you should add qualifiers like "typically" and "usually" to the relevant sentences, like so: "In Europe, exhibits typically have rocky backgrounds ... In the United States, sea lions are usually kept in pens with ..." (That's more in line with what the source says.)
  • MOSP-WIFOTM:
    • "Various human cultures have depicted pinnipeds for millennia" would be better than "Various human cultures depicted pinnipeds for millennia".
Fixed all. LittleJerry (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added the commas. – Quadell (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conservation and management issues (all resolved)
  • You should use em dashes instead of en dashes around "the Japanese sea lion and the Caribbean monk seal" to be consistent with other parts of the article. Since that entire sentence is so long and winding, it would be preferable to break it up. Also, the parenthetical lists need "and"s where appropriate. The subsequent sentence would be improved with em dashes as well. Once all these are implemented, the sentence could be rewritten as follows:
Two species—the Japanese sea lion and the Caribbean monk seal—are recently extinct, and ten more are considered at risk. These include those ranked as "Critically Endangered" (the Mediterranean and Hawaiian monk seals), "Endangered" (Galápagos fur seal, Australian sea lion, Caspian seal and Galápagos sea lion), and "Vulnerable" (northern fur seal, hooded seal and New Zealand sea lion). In addition, three species—the walrus, the ribbon seal and the spotted seal—have a "Data Deficient" ranking.
  • Commas are needed after "phocids are made into coats", "one year of age between September and February", "Seal killings continued", "common around the Japanese islands", "methods to control the animals", and "negative effect on the fishing industry".
  • "just as important of an industry" should be "just as important an industry"
  • In "Sea lions also conflict with fisherman as they often steal their catches", it isn't clear which group is "they" and which is "their". (Also, it should be "men" instead of "man".) After reading the source, I think it would be best to reword it as "Sea lions also conflict with fishermen, since both depend on the same fish stocks" (or "compete for the same fish stocks").
  • In the next sentence, "their" is unclear. I would change it to "the MMPA was amended to permit the lethal removal of sea lions from...".
  • MOSP-WIFOTM:
    • "Seal hunting by humans existed" would be better as "Seal hunting by humans has existed".
    • I think it would be better to remove the "As such" from "As such, some anthropologists argue..."
    • "The Government of Canada has permitted the hunting of harp seals" would be better as "The Government of Canada permits the hunting of harp seals".
    • I would prefer "significant" to "considerable" in "is a considerable cause of mortality"
Fixed all. LittleJerry (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't forget my issue with captions, as mentioned in the "Overall" section at the top. – Quadell (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article fully deserves FA status. The article is incredibly thorough and meticulously referenced, with only high-quality sources used. Each of my spotchecks showed that the source fully backs up the statement without plagiarism. The article has an admirable global perspective, and deals with controversies in ways that avoids NPOV problems. In addition, the nominators have been great to work with and have fixed all problems with impressive quickness. – Quadell (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your in depth review and support. LittleJerry (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cwmhiraeth Like Quadell, I think this an excellent, well-written and researched article. A few points I noticed:

  • I have been led to believe that the lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article in easy-to-understand language to draw readers in. As a summary it seems fine but it uses a lot of jargon with which the general reader may be unfamiliar.
  • "While they were historically thought to have descended ..." - It is not clear what "they" refers to here.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "carnivoran" may not be familiar to readers. I think their should be an explanation of how it differs from a carnivore.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems a bit odd you using the terms otariids, phocids and walruses in the same sentence.
I don't understand. LittleJerry (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, otariids and phocids are derivatives of scientific names while walruses are common names. It might have been more logical to use "odobenids" instead of walruses. However you do use these names consistently throughout the article except once in the lead when you use "otarids". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that. LittleJerry (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention "fat, or blubber" but you don't explain vibrissae.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... other than the walrus, all species have fur coats." - This made me laugh, a seal wearing a fur coat.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pinnipeds are typically polygynous, although the degree of polygyny varies with the species. Land-breeding species tend toward greater polygyny while ice-breeding species are less polygynous." - over use of an unfamiliar technical term.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Male pinniped strategies for reproductive success vary between female defense, territorial defense and lekking." - These concepts are too difficult for the lead without further explanation.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Besides exploitation, pinnipeds also face threats from bycatching, marine pollution, and conflicts with local people." - Ditto.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and the bronchus are divided anteriorly." - Shouldn't this be "bronchi"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While sea lions and fur seal have historically been considered separate subfamilies ..." - "seal" should be in the plural.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Phocids have thickened mastoids, enlarged entotympanic bones, an everted pelvic bone and a massive ankle bone." - Why the mixed plural and singular body parts?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Monachinae, which consists of the elephant seals, monk seals and lobodontine seals; and Phocinae, which includes the genera Pusa, Phoca, Halichoerus, Histriophoca, Pagophilus, Erignathus and Cystophora." - I am not keen on using vernacular names in one half of this sentence and scientific names in the other.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in your use of mya and million years ago.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... and it may have stayed near shore more often." - More often than what?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Enaliarctos was capable of swimming with both the fore-flippers and hind-flippers, but it may have been more specialized for the former." - This could be better expressed.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... diet like the modern walrus. Walruses further diversified ..." - Best not to finish one sentence and start the next with the same word.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Caspian sea." - Capitalise Caspian Sea.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be continued. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "external ear flaps, small tails, rounded heads, flexible necks and limbs modified into flippers." - Tails would be better elsewhere in this list.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they lack carnassials and they tend to be fewer in number " - The word "they" is used twice here and each time refers to a different subject.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the small and large intestines; the large intestine is comparatively short" - Perhaps substitute "the latter" for the second mention of the large intestine.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the increased volume of the digestive tract serves as an extended storage compartment during submersion." - Storage for what?
added "for partially digested food". Sasata (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unlike other marine mammals, pinnipeds have two pairs of flippers on the front and back, the fore-flippers and hind-flippers." - this is confusing.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They also lack arrector pili so their fur can lay flat as they swim." - "lie flat"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition, seals can tolerate large amounts of lactic acid." - Perhaps you could explain the significance of this.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To keep their blood pressure stable, phocids have an elastic aorta that stores some energy of each heartbeat and releases it." - do you mean "and later releases it"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be continued. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some species also exploit man-made structures like piers, jetties, buoys and oil platforms." - How do they do this?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pinnipeds may move further inland and rest in sand dunes or vegetation, and may even climb steep cliffs." - I see there is a reference for this hard to believe statement. Should it really be "low cliffs" or something similar?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk)
  • "Travelling seals may use various features of their environment to reach their destination including geomagnetic fields, water and wind currents, the position of the sun and moon and the taste and temperature of the water." - Currents might help them but I guess you mean they use these things to guide them towards their destination.
Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should start a new paragraph for the topic of diving.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The prey often escapes, and seals are often seen with shark-inflicted wounds." - Two "often"s in one sentence.
  • "Ringed seals build dens underneath fast ice to hide from predators like polar bears." - Explain or link "fast ice".
  • "Leopard seals typically target crabeater pups, which form an important of their diet from November to January." - Missing word.
  • In the "Foraging and predation" section, is not man a major predator? (I think it should be mentioned here even if dealt with in more detail in the "Human relations" section.)
  • "Few islands are favorable for breeding, and those that are particularly crowded." - Unsatisfactory sentence.
  • "Since the land they breed on is fixed, females of these species return to the same sites year after year." - Could be better expressed.
  • "Seals that breed on ice or water tend to have little or no sexual dimorphism" - They can't breed "on water".
  • "The females can usually move freely between territories and males are unable to coerce them, but some species, like the northern fur seal, South American sea lion and Australian sea lion, can successfully contain females in their territories and prevent them from leaving." - The second half of this sentence has no suitable subject.
  • The subject is "some species". Sasata (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you think that "Some species can successfully contain females in their territories and prevent them from leaving." is a sensible sentence? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see what is wrong with it ... could I have a hint? Sasata (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Outside perspective: it feels vaguely odd to say that the entire species contain females (which are a part of the species). Would this rewording work? "... but in some species ... the males can successfully contain females ..." – Quadell (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with Quadell - you could have said "Males of some species can successfully contain females in their territories and prevent them from leaving." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When their mothers are away, the pups will fast." - While I think.
  • "Walruses are unique in that mothers nurse their young at sea. Young accompany their mothers after they learn how to dive at five months old. Lactation in this species lasts two years, which suggests that the young need time to learn aquatic nursing." - They obviously nurse the young on land at first. I think the second sentence is a non-sequiter. I would think they need the long period for the young to learn to feed and live independently.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Male vocals are deeper than female vocals." Too many "vocal"s in this sentence and paragraph.
  • "These differences are likely important for mothers and pups who need to remain in contact in crowded beaches." - "on crowded beaches" would be better.
  • "Land-breeding species tend towards individual males mating with a greater number of females a season while males of ice-breeding species mate with less" - Back in the lead section, this sentence needs rewording.
  • "Pinnipeds are typically polygynous, although the degree of polygyny varies with the species." - Still in the leaf, this sentence needs to be more accessible.
  • "Some species are even serially monogamous." - ditto.
  • "Male pinniped strategies for reproductive success vary between defending females, depending territories that attract females and preforming ritual displays or lekking." - ditto.
  • I have reworded, trimmed, or otherwise edited these sentences. Sasata (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop there as Cryptic C62 has looked in detail at the "Human relations" section. I look forward to supporting the candidacy soon. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now supporting this candidacy on grounds of prose and comprehensiveness (apart from the Human relations section which I have not studied). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you Cwmhiraeth, for helping to tighten up the article! Sasata (talk) 04:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments on Human relations

  • "There are even stories of people mating with selkies in their human form." Unnecessary. I suggest deleting it. Also, why "even"? Appropriate wording for a kids' book, but not an encyclopedia article.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Seals are also of great importance in the culture of the Inuits, who depend on them for survival." How so? Food, pelts, transportation?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sedna story could probably be cut down a bit. At the very least, a consistent tense needs to be adopted; bouncing back and forth between past and present just doesn't work.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the In captivity subsection: do countries other than the US exist?
It talks about Europe too. Only Europe and the US are discussed in the source. LittleJerry (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So then other sources should be investigated. The caption for File:Kobe oji zoo 2009 April 22.jpg states that the photo was taken at a zoo in Japan. Surely there must be some sourcing that can be used to substantiate this, no? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I got confused by this one. I thought you meant what seal facilities where like in other places besides Europe and US. It does mention zoo and aqua in other places that have seals but only gets into detail on the makeup of US and European exhibits. Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see both "U.S. Navy" and "US naval".
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was the inconsistent punctuation. I've gone ahead and fixed it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Marine Mammal Center in California cares for sick or injured pinnipeds and releases them back into the wild." Why was this arbitrarily tacked onto the end of a paragraph about the U.S. Navy?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem any better placed at the end of a paragraph about exhibits, either. Are there other facilities similar to the Marine Mammal Center? If so, perhaps they could be described together in their own paragraph. If there's nothing notable to say about them, it may be better to just cut this altogether. Either solution would be better than shoving the sentence into unrelated paragraphs. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These species, which depend on sea ice habitats in the Northern Hemisphere" It's not clear what "these species" refers to. It could be the three data deficient dudes, or all of the species mentioned in the previous two sentences.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The decline of Steller sea lions in Alaska since the 1970s has been subject to much debate." Debate about what? Could be the severity of the decline, or the cause, or any number of other things.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The scale of seal harvesting decreased substantially after the 1960s." Why?
Source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then other sources need to be investigated. If this phenomenon is notable enough for someone to have written about it, surely it must also be notable enough for some attempt at an explanation. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added "after the Canadian government reduced the length of the hunting season and implemented measures to protect adult females." Sasata (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, Weddell seal hunting is prohibited if the animal is over one year of age between September and February" Confusing word order. Should probably say "However, Weddell seal hunting is prohibited between September and February if the animal is over one year of age", unless I have misinterpreted this.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:29, 1 October 2013 (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 10:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Deepika Padukone[edit]

Nominator(s): smarojit HD 01:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC) & Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because after months of work, I feel that it meets the FA criteria. Padukone has emerged as one of the most popular actresses of contemporary Hindi cinema, with roles in two of the highest-grossing Bollywood films of all time. It has been extensively researched by both Dr. Blofeld and me. Happy reading! smarojit HD 01:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (CC via OTRS or website link). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image check. :) --smarojit HD 13:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

This will come in stages I'm afraid so please bare with me. At first glance this looks like a winner. As usual, the lede will come last. Here are some comments to be getting on with:

Early life and background
  • "...Konkani-speaking parents." -- Why is this relevant? Surely their mother country would explain more?
It says something about the caste of the family I think, which in India is remarkable, especially as she's an actress of Hindi film. I think it just says something about her heritage anyway but it can be removed of course if you feel strongly enough about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True. India being such a large country, I think that it is necessary to know what her mother tongue is. --smarojit HD 13:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. But no where does it mention India in the first opening lines of the body. In an age of multiculturalism, anyone anywhere can speak Konkani nowadays. Sorry if this is obvious to you guys, but geography was never really must strong point at school. -- CassiantoTalk 13:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to repeat the surname for both parents? Maybe the father, but not the mother.
Done
  • "She has a younger sister, golfer Anisha Padukone..." -- Definite article is more preferable.
Changed the sentence to avoid confusion.
  • "Padukone was schooled at Bangalore's Sophia High School" -- Avoid repetition of "schooled/school" by replacing the former with "educated" or "attended" or similar. Also, "Padukone was schooled at Bangalore's..." is a bit confusing as we speak of her sister before hand. Can we clarify that we are talking about the subject again?
Done.
  • "Through her school life, Padukone continued to pursue a career in badminton and played the sport at the national level championships. She also played baseball for a few state level championships." -- Is there anyway to avoid a repetition of "championships"? Suggest: "Through her school life, Padukone pursued a career in badminton and also played baseball, reaching the state level championships for both sports" or similar?
Changed the second occurrence to "tournaments". --smarojit HD 13:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Padukone first modelled for a couple of campaigns at the age of eight, following which she concentrated on her education and sporting career." Sounds awkward, suggest "Padukone first modelled for a couple of campaigns at the age of eight while concentrating on her education and sporting career" or similar. Also, do we know of any early modelling success in her early years or who or what she modelled for? Eight does sound awfully young to be a model so this I feel we need a bit of elaboration.
First part resolved. But I couldn't find any sources regarding the work she did at the age of eight. --smarojit HD 13:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was inclined to pursue a career in entertainment and thus, in 2004 she began a full-time career as a model under the tutelage of Prasad Bidapa." Was was she inclined to pursue a career in entertainment? This is the first mention of this; what sparked her taste for entertainment? Was it the modelling? If so, "entertainment" maybe the wrong word here. I note that she took up a full-time career as a model which reinforces my notion that "modelling" is more correct than "entertainment".
Done.
  • "Early in her career, Padukone gained recognition with a television commercial for the soap Liril..." -- How did she gain recognition from a commercial? Most actors in commercials nowadays I wouldn't recognise if they walked past me in the street and slapped my with a wet fish! Was the commercial particularly notable? If so why?
Actually, the Liril television campaign is a very popular one. A similar soap campaign had launched the career of Preity Zinta. Not sure how to incorporate this in the text though. --smarojit HD 13:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe such commercials in India have a much bigger impact in India and they often literally become the "face" of something, not to mention being viewed by more people. As Smaro says a similar thing happened with Preity Zinta. I'm not sure we can really explain it, but things seem to be different in India than in the UK/US. Perhaps it is comparable to Marilyn Chambers and Ivory Snow in that it launched her career and they used it to their advantage in promoting her x-rated career because she was famous for her "pure" role in the ad?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the age of twenty one" → "At the age of 21". Per MOS:Numbers
Done
  • "...she shifted base to Mumbai" →Sounds idiomatic to me.
Changed.
  • That year she gained wider recognition by featuring in the music video for Himesh Reshammiya's song "Naam Hai Tera". -- How did the song do? Was it because of the songs popularity that caused her to come under wider recognition?
Yes, I can't find anything substantial on it, but I thinks it's fairly clear that the music video was widely distributed on Indian TV or whatever and as a result she became better known in India.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to her successful modelling career," -- I wasn't aware of the success? She had only just made her runway debut a few lines ago? What and how did she become successful with?
Reworded, edited this out.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Film debut and breakthrough (2006–09)
  • "Padukone announced in 2006 that she would make her screen debut..." -- I thought she did this with the music videos? Suggest swapping "screen" with "film" or similar.
Done.
  • "The film, a romantic comedy, was a remake of..." -- "The film" is redundant and it would work quite well without it IMO. "The romantic comedy, was a remake of..."
Done.
  • "Upon release" -- again here. "the film proved a major commercial success" would suggest the film was released.
Removed.
  • " 'screen presence' " -- Not entirely convinced that the quote add anything and would work quite as well incorporated into the text.
Done.
  • Why do we translate "hasta mudras", when we could easily just use the words within the parenthesis. This of course wouldn't be in question if hasta mudras had come from a quote.
I think it's a formal term used for a form or characteristic of Indian classical dance so it makes sense to use the native name for it and put what it means in English. Isn't that OK?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Doc. Yes it's better now it has been explained. Again, sorry for my lack of knowing on the subject. -- CassiantoTalk 13:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "Bollywood Hungama"?
Formerly IndiaFM, one of the leading Indian entertainment portals and their reviews are much respected in India. I agree it seems a dubious source but it really isn't and is used in existing featured articles and most Indian cinema articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think an introduction would be good then in this case. To me (and dare I say it other westerners) may not gauge that this is a radio station as it is not obvious from the title. -- CassiantoTalk 13:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's an entertainment portal, not a radio station. Added description at first occurrence. --smarojit HD 13:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Easy mixup when you consider "IndiaFM" to sound like a radio station...ok, stop laughing at the back there!! ;) -- CassiantoTalk 15:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hahah, if I didn't know the portal's history, I would have thought so too. --smarojit HD 15:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "writer-director Imtiaz Ali" →"the writer-director Imtiaz Ali".
Done.
Career struggles (2010–11)
  • "Padukone had five releases in 2010..." -- New para and more importantly new section, so slight elaboration is needed. "Padukone had five film releases in 2010. After all, the title doesn't give away the fact we are still continuing with films.
Done.
  • The line "The film released to a mixed critical response and earned little profit at the box office." Will need looking at and fixing.
Changed. I hope it's better now. --smarojit HD 16:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film was largely panned by critics, including Raja Sen who attributed her poor performance due to her "plasticky expressions". -- We don't need "attributed" and "due" in the same sentence as they essentially mean the same thing.
Done.
  • "Later that year, Hindustan Times published that Padukone's role..." -- Not sure "published" is the correct word here.
  • Possible OR: "Later that year, Hindustan Times published that Padukone's role in Pradeep Sarkar's Lafangey Parindey contributed in changing the general perception regarding her film roles, with focus directed on her acting prowess rather than her appearance." To avoid the OR label, we should stick this in quotes if we know it, or word it like we are not offering POV statements.
Actually, I couldn't find a direct quote for this. But this sentence summarises the basic idea of the cited article. --smarojit HD 16:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to link "skating"? This looks like a forced link to find out if its "ice", "roller" or something else.
Removed.
  • "...she observed the interactions of blind people to their surroundings and rehearsed scenes... ." -- We need a comma between "people" and "to" (unless I'm reading thesis wrongly).
Can't figure why it needs a comma there. --smarojit HD 13:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like I say, I may have read this incorrectly. -- CassiantoTalk 15:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure that quoting "little research" adds much and would work more than amicably without doing so.
Changed.
  • What is an "item number"?
the very common term for one of the song/dances in Bollywood movies, I'm certain most readers would be very familiar with the term, can you think of a different way to reword it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hate this term, but that's what it is formally called in India, and has been wikilinked. --smarojit HD 13:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This helps a lot thanks for the link. I know nothing of modern terms around music or Bollywood sorry my fault. -- CassiantoTalk 13:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Trade journalists had high expectations from the film" →"Trade journalists had high expectations for the film"
Done.
Cocktail and beyond (2012–present)
  • "Raja Sen of Rediff.com opined and published that..." -- do we need "opined" and "published", or can we take one as read?
Removed "published".
  • "During the script narration, producer Dinesh Vijan..." -- I do like my definite articles and I think it should be in use here.
Added.
  • "Critics were divided in their opinion of the film itself..." -- Redundant "itself".
Removed.
  • "Commercially, the film proved a box office hit in both India and overseas." -- You can't be a hit in overseas?
Stopped at 'hit'. --smarojit HD 05:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life and off-screen work
  • "Though she did not mention Kapoor's name..." -- New para should begin with the noun and not a pronoun
Done.
  • "This led to wide speculation in the media about the nature of her relationship with the cricket manager.[105] She declined to publicly talk about the relationship; the following year there was speculation about a break-up..." -- Two "speculations" within close proximity of each other.
Reworded.
In the media
  • Could we start this section with "The journalist"?
Done.
Lead section
  • Definite article when describing her father in first para.
Done.
  • "She later left her career in sports..." Why the plural?
Done.
  • "She had enrolled for a bachelor of arts degree in sociology..." -- Would work just as well without "had".
Done.
  • "...due to scheduling" -- "due to" I consider to be AmEng. Is this the intention?
Yeah, I guess so.
  • Padukone soon began receiving offers for film roles..." -- past tense as this has already happened. →"Padukone soon received offers for film roles..."
Changed.
  • I consider the infobox to be more of a WP:DISINFOBOX and utterly pointless here. Doctor B knows my stance on these, but I appreciate others would think differently. I see other Bollywood actresses have similar, so this must be the norm so I am in no way insistent on this point. Just chucking this out there as a point of view if nothing else. ;)
I completely agree with you on this. Removed it. --smarojit HD 02:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – per above resolved comments. A very good article and one which would sit quite happily with Chopra, Zinta, and Kapoor. Nice work guys! -- CassiantoTalk 19:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you enjoyed it. Thank you once again for your comments, it really helped improve the article. :) --smarojit HD 02:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cass.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the comments. :) --smarojit HD 13:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco[edit]

Addressed comments moved to talk page

  • Support on prose. Good job everybody, this one looks pretty well polished. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the support, Crisco. :) --smarojit HD 01:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash29792[edit]

I don't have much to say, but the lead reads that Padukone has "written columns for an Indian newspaper" - which paper? Also, is the word "alongside" formal and professional? ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kailash, thank you for your comment. She has written columns for Hindustan Times which has been mentioned in the main body. And IMO the word "alongside" is professional; it has been used in a lot of recent FA's. :) --smarojit HD 13:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "She is currently... Farrah Khan's renewal of happy new year" . Replace currently with as of date. Also, why "renewal"?--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Dwai, the start of this paragraph begins with the "as of" date, so deleted the word 'currently'. Thanks for pointing it out. :) And "renewal" because Happy New Year was shelved before (it is mentioned in the early career section). --smarojit HD 01:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Loeba[edit]

Lead
  • I don't think we need to be told about her stint at university in the lead. And after reading the early life section, the baseball isn't significant enough to mention either. In general the lead feels a little overly-detailed...I won't insist on it being trimmed, but something for you to consider (she's only had a 7 year career, after all).
I understand, but I tried to mention something about her background in the lead, so that it doesn't read like a filmography page. --smarojit HD 03:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure some background info is required, but it seemed odd to me to read these inessential facts in the lead. I've edited it to show you what it could be like with this stuff removed. What do you think? --Loeba (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox. I appreciate if you're not a fan of them, but it's very standard for actor articles to have an infoxbox and I think you'll find yourself constantly battling with other editors over it...it's bound to be re-added all the time. I'm personally a fan of them, and two pieces of information that they provide at a quick glance (not so easily available in the lead) are 1. the subjects age, and 2. the years they have been active. Something else to think about.
Most of us here seem to agree that the infobox is pointless. I understand the enthusiasm for infoboxes on wikipedia but that doesn't mean that this must have an infobox to pass FAC. Looks better with out it IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't suggest that it was necessary, I just said it was "something to think about". I anticipate it causing a fair amount of trouble (I see it has already been re-added and reverted), but it's up to you two. --Loeba (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • A better section heading for this might be "Early life and modelling career"?
Done.
  • Is there any reason her family was living in Denmark when she was born?
Can't find any reliable source for that, but it would probably be because her father was participating in a tournament there.
  • How long was she at uni for before dropping out? I think it'd be worth adding if possible.
Again, couldn't find an exact source. :(
  • "I also played a lot of sport and at a very young age, I played competitive badminton." > I think this section of the quote should be paraphrased. Also, not sure the newspaper really needs to be mentioned?
Done.
  • "By 2006 Padukone had established a career as a model after a highly successful print campaign for Kingfisher Calendar" - Awkward, she already had a career as a model. I think you just mean she was considered a major model, or very successful model. Needs rewording.
Reworded.
  • "a Ganjam jewellery class he was teaching on the use of jewels with clothing" - Do we need to know the specifics of the class?
Removed.
Film debut
  • "By the end of 2006, Farah Khan's Happy New Year was shelved" This was jarring to me: we haven't even been told about this film...
Actually, the film is mentioned in the final sentence of the "Early life" section.
Oops, sorry! --Loeba (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the film was hugely anticipated" - "hugely" is not very encyclopedic.
Agreed, changed to highly.
Sorry to be nitpicking, but we now have "highly" and "high-profile" very close together. That's why I didn't go ahead and change it to "highly" myself. --Loeba (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"the film was highly anticipated both nationally and internationally" OK?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If she received a Best Actress nomination for Love Aaj Kal, I'm guessing most critics must've liked her performance? So is it appropriate to have that negative review comment? Maybe it is representative, in which case it's fine, but it seemed a bit odd to me.
I know it's surprising but some nominations at Filmfare are given just due to the economic profitability of the film and not for the performance. Very strange, but true. --smarojit HD 03:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I took a quick look at the reviews cited in the film's article, and comments for her performance include "Padukone delivers the best of her four performances so far", "Deepika plays Meera so effectively, you're left wondering who else could have done the role", "Both Saif and Deepika come up with their career-best performances", "Deepika is definitive and strong"...there was only one other negative review, along with the one mentioned in her article. I think the response to her performance is being misrepresented (the lead even claims she "earned little praise" for the performance, which I'm afraid is evidently not true...) --Loeba (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, and I apologise for this. Changed it in the main body and the lead. --smarojit HD 17:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Career struggles
  • "The film was largely panned by critics," - not sourced.
Sadly, there isn't a "Rotten Tomatoes"-like website that aggregates reviews for Indian films. It's also impossible to cite a number of reviews for this sentence, hence I had to mention this with a single negative review. --smarojit HD 03:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but I'm sure you know that we can't just have a general statement like this unsourced in an FA. Maybe there's an article somewhere that summarises the fate of the film (and the ones I mention below) that you can use? Otherwise, I'm afraid you'll just have to rely on giving one or two critics opinions to represent the critical response, without making a general statement about it (which pretty much has the same effect). --Loeba (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the statement, and included a quote from the review about the film. --smarojit HD 17:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hindustan Times published that the film contributed in changing the general perception regarding her roles, with focus directed on her acting prowess rather than her appearance." I found this sentence pretty awkward...I quickly tweaked it, but feel like it could still be worded better...
Actually, it sounds much better now, thanks.
  • "the Kunal Kohli-produced romantic comedy" - Is the producer relevant?
The producer of the film is more notable than the director, hence mentioned it.
Unless he's REALLY notable, which I'm not getting a sense of from his article, then I'd remove it. --Loeba (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "While the film generated mixed reviews" - not sourced.
Per above. --smarojit HD 03:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will hopefully finish up tomorrow! --Loeba (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time out to review this, Loeba. Really appreciate it and look forward to the rest of your comments. :) --smarojit HD 03:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing, sorry for the delay:

Cocktail and beyond
  • "her performance [Chennai Express] received praise" - Not sourced.
Added source. --smarojit HD 17:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life...
  • The stuff about the infidelity - I think it would flow better if the media suspicion that she was talking about Kapoor was mentioned before the quote...When I first read that, I was thinking "Why is this relevant? Why was it controversial?" That was made clear as soon as I got to the next paragraph, but I wouldn't have been confused if the connection was clearly made at the start.
I tried changing this, but couldn't find a right way to do so since she didn't name Kapoor in the interview. It somehow doesn't sound right that way. I would appreciate some help in doing this. Thanks. --smarojit HD 17:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had a go, what do you think? --Loeba (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the media
  • Nice summary
Thank you. :) --smarojit HD 17:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know how hard it is to try and string together a comprehensive, nicely flowing biography from 100+ media articles and reviews, so congratulations on achieving this. Thousands of people look at the article every day, so thank you for your hard work here. It's close to FA (IMO), but we do need to sort out those incidents of WP:OR and what seems to be a misleading representation of her work in Love Aaj Kal. --Loeba (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. And I apologise again for the Love Aaj Kal reviews. I have changed that now. :) --smarojit HD 17:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh guys, I'm reading through again finding even more instances of OR (I think I initially assumed the comments must have been covered by the sources, but I can see now that they're not) and misuse of sources. I started removing some myself, but I'm just going to list the rest here for you to deal with:

  • "Film critics were generally disappointed with the picture and Padukone's performance" (Chadni Chowk to China)
Added a Rotten Tomatoes source. --smarojit HD 17:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critical response to the film was mixed" (Karthik Calling Karthik)
Removed.
  • "the film was met with polarising reviews from critics" (Khelein Hum Jee Jaan Sey - source gives no indication of "polarising reviews")
Removed.
  • "Critical reaction was largely negative" (Aarakshan)
Found a source.
  • "Critics were divided in their opinion of the film, but particularly praised Padukone's performance" (Cocktail)
Found a source.
  • "Film critics were unanimous in their appreciation of Padukone's performance" (Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani - Doesn't seem to be mentioned in the source (which does support the second part of the sentence))
Used the source you mentioned below, and reworded. --smarojit HD 17:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now after putting these, I've come across this article, that is used for her Chennai Express reviews. It seems to be useful in summarising the response to several of her films/roles. I'll leave this to you.

It's a bit concerning how many problems I've found throughout reviewing the article, and you really need to be careful with this sort of thing. Someone less kind than me would have flat-out opposed. I understand that you want to make statements like these because they help understand her career, and they read well, but...If you can't find a source that gives a summary of the critical response, then I'm afraid you just need to accept that this can't be mentioned in the article. It's a shame, I know, but..I wouldn't be doing my job as an FAC reviewer if I let it pass. Next time you prepare an article, make sure everything is covered by the subsequent source, and make sure you have a good understanding of each element so that you aren't misrepresenting it (as happened w/ Love Aaj Kal). --Loeba (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I've found another poorly sourced statement lower down: "several media publications began crediting her as the most successful contemporary actress in India." - This is a bold statement, and the source given really isn't a sufficient support for it. It says she is "the best thing about all her films" and "striking box-office gold", but that makes no claim about her overall status, and certainly doesn't mention that "several media publications" think this. I'm getting concerned that you don't know how to use sources very well, meaning there could be more problems that I haven't found... --Loeba (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I wrote that because the article calls her the "Number 1 heroine" in Bollywood today. That means that she is the most successful actress, right? There are many other sources that mention the same. I can add those if you want. --smarojit HD 16:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you need to add a couple more. --Loeba (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added two more sources. smarojit HD 16:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it comes down to more the problem with fully sourcing those claims. It would be unfeasible in my opinion to cite up to 10 sources for one claim (which would really be needed so as not to make it seem OR). The way to do it might be to strengthen each claim with a couple of reviews which support the statement indirectly, but the problem lies in the fact that no source says anything like "The film received a mixed reception but Padukone was praised". So it's difficult to source and verify because of the nature of the reviews.. Given that few or no credible sources to date have made an encyclopedic evaluation of her films and career as a whole, I'm not sure how this is really avoidable Loeba.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so it means that the statement can't be made at all. You just have to find a review that is representative of the critical response, and leave it to speak for itself. --Loeba (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But occasionally you can find a source that gives a summary, ie the one I linked above has "Critics saw immense potential in the actress", "Critics went gaga over the lady", "Cocktail got her noticed in the critics circuit once again", "Her portrayal as Naina got her critics' praise once again." Things like this are perfect. --Loeba (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think a balance is needed, I think it would be damaging to remove all of the statements but where possible if a few multiple sources inside one ref template can be used which at least provide some form of argument backing what is said or if a source which gives a summary can be found this would be ideal. If no sources can be found to offer a glimmer of light on the matter then it should be removed of course.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to do my best with the lack of concrete sources. --smarojit HD 17:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's one of the drawbacks/frustrations of working on contemporary actor articles. There were many times while I was writing the Moore article that I would have liked to say "her performance was widely praised", or whatever, but I knew that I couldn't if there wasn't already a source that said as much. Nevermind, it's still possible to give a solid overview of a career (as I like to think we both have!) --Loeba (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is indeed frustrating, but yes, we seem to have overcome that hurdle now. --smarojit HD 02:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Right, all my concerns have been addressed (it was unreasonable of me to suggest there may be further problems with the sourcing, I am going to WP:Assume good faith that there is not) and this is a well-written, thoroughly researched article. Great job. --Loeba (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's one of those things which is difficult to really fully demonstrate with sourcing because Indian cinema really lacks a general encyclopedic and professional critical analysis which can be used directly to support such statements. Unlike older Hollywood for instance when you could find tons of different sources saying that John Wayne's role as a Mongol Emperor was seen poorly by critics or for other single performances! I've encountered similar problems on other Indian actor articles and I believe it was always addressed by citing one or two sources which say the film/role was a success or failure and it is usually taken in good faith to be true and that the author knows what they're talking about. Technically you are right though that if the source doesn't directly say it then it can seem OR. Disputes can potentially come about on deciding whether something was really acclaimed or badly received as a lot of reviews tend to be mixed. I'm glad that you've spotted what you have but I would sincerely hope that there are not many further problems with the sourcing. Anybody else here feel free to make random spot checks. Thanks Loeba, greatly appreciate your input and time put in here and support!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Loeba for you support and giving us such a thorough review. :) --smarojit HD 02:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dharmadhyaksha[edit]

  • "Bachchan played the revolutionary leader Surya Sen and Padukone played Kalpana Dutta, his lover and confidante." is sourced to a film review article. That is good enough to state what role she played but a poor one to state that Dutta and Sen were lovers. Even if the film showed them such, we should get better sources to say that.
Added another source. --smarojit HD 10:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The new ref added says:- As far as the romance between Surya Sen and Kalpana Dutta is concerned, the actor explained that the film doesn't dwell too much on that. "We realized that we could not possibly deal with something that we aren't sure of...". And she says it rightly. For calling them two as lovers we would require a non-film related source, something historic. If its difficult to find, which am pretty confident it is as probability of it being non-existent is high, then its better rephrased. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the controversial use of the word "lover". Okay? --smarojit HD 12:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her next film was Prakash Jha's melodrama Aarakshan,". Melodrama for Aarakshan seems a bit odd. Maybe "social drama" or "socio-political drama".
Changed.
  • "A practicing Hindu, Padukone considers religion to be an important aspect of her life and makes frequent visits to temples and other religious shrines". Should the temple be linked to Hindu temple?
Linked.
  • "... tattoo of his initials on the nape of her neck." Thats what nape is, of neck, right?
Nape of her neck. that's fine, yes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done.

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Dharmadhyaksha. :) --smarojit HD 10:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dwaipayan[edit]

  • "In a 2010 interview, Padukone made a comment ..." folowed by a long quotation. Then, "Kapoor initially denied the allegations, but according to The Times of India, he later admitted to the infidelity." Is this long quote really needed? That sounds like gossipy to me. Staffs of page 3. Yes, we can surely state that they broke up, and Padukone told about infidelity. (and may be that Kapoor admitted later). That i smy preference, please think hard if this long quote is really needed. If you remove the quote, are we missing something ?
I understand your concern, but I think this quote gives a much needed insight on a celebrity's personal life which is such a well documented event. This isn't mere gossip, but a direct quote from her. A lot of readers of rhis article will be much interested in reading about this. So I think this is very much needed. I would try to trim it though, if it is a major concern. --smarojit HD 15:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first paragraph of "In the media" section, I have a preference that each and every reference to a newspaper or book or magazine should have a date (unless approximate time is guessable from the content). For example, in stead of "The journalist Vir Sanghvi describes Padukone as...", I'd prefer "The jouranlist Vir Sanghvi, in 2010, described Padukone as...". This might make reading more halted, but at the same time, it will be more time-proof. What if Sanghvi describes her as something else later on? Just like we do not like "currently", I feel here we should have time-stamps. I'd listen to any counter arguement.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like Nice point. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Added year for Sanghvi's quote. But the rest of the quotes in the paragraph are from 2013 too, so I don't think there is a need to repeat that. Is that fine? --smarojit HD 15:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bollywood Dreamz[edit]

  • "Following much media speculation, the director Farah Khan..." and "During the script narration, the producer Dinesh Vijan offered Padukone..." Is the 'the' really needed?
Actually, this was included due to Cassianto's comment on the review above. :)
  • "On working with Shahrukh and Farah Khan, she said, "I've grown up watching Shah Rukh and always..." Which one is it? Shah Rukh or Shahrukh - please maintain consistency.
Changed.
  • "She followed this success with the role of Gayatri (one of star Ranbir Kapoor's love interests)..." Is the word 'star' really needed?
This one was included due to Crisco's comment above.
  • "In early 2013, Padukone performed at the 2013 Zee Cine awards". Please avoid the repetition of 2013. If we said that in early 2013 she performed for the ZCA, isn't it obvious that it would be for the 2013 award ceremony?
Done.

Support Overall, a well-written article with just a few minor suggestions. Congrats to the writers! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 15:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Dreamz. :) --smarojit HD 15:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mr. Dreamz, I gather that's a support then?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

A couple of minor bits from me; I made some small changes while going through: please revert if you don't like them.

Film debut and breakthrough

  • "to imbibe their body language": I'm pretty sure it's not possible to drink body language, so I'd go for something more encyclopaedic.
Changed to "read". Is that better?
I changed to "study", which is what she was doing; "watch" or "examine" would also work well, if you don't like study. - SchroCat (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a colossal economic failure": colossal is hardly encyclopaedic, so I'd opt for something else; "financial" is probably better than "economic";
Changed.

General

  • Not sure we need "US$" for each reference: WP:CURRENCY suggests we don’t need it for every occurrence.
Since I am using the currency conversion template, this is listed automatically. I am not sure how to change this.
Me neither! Leave it as is - it's only a minor point, and the conversion is the more important aspect. - SchroCat (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

  • FN37 has an inconstant date format
Corrected.

All rather minor points in a very good article. - SchroCat (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much SchroCat. :) --smarojit HD 01:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: all good for me. - SchroCat (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Schrod!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graham!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:45, 13 October 2013 (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 10:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Great North of Scotland Railway[edit]

Nominator(s): Edgepedia (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I found a copy of Vallance (the main source) in a charity shop and thought this would make an interesting article. Thanks to User:Tim riley for the comments to the peer review; since then I have added a few details from another book. Edgepedia (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I looked in on spec at peer review, and though railway history is not one of my usual stamping grounds I read this substantial article from start to finish with pleasure and interest. It does what Wikipedia at its best does better than any other online resource – it gives a full and beautifully-illustrated overview of its topic. At FAC I try to avoid comment on images, as I am inexpert on Wikipedia's byzantine rules, but the prose seems to me to meet all the FAC criteria. It is full, but not overfull; the referencing is excellent and (importantly at FAC) from a good range of sources in addition to Vallance; it is a pleasure to read; there is no discernible bias. I look forward to seeing the article on the front page. – Tim riley (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Tim. Edgepedia (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

Establishment and construction

  • "Two years later the railway mania bubble had burst..." -- An idiom I would avoid for an encyclopaedic article.
  • "The following winter was severe, delaying work..." -- Past tense more preferable.

Opening

  • I'm not a huge fan of bulleted lists within prose based articles, but I can see where you are coming from with this as the order reading downwards to give the feel of a train timetable oddly enough. One thing though, should the citations be after punctuation marks? I speak of Buxburn and Inverury
  • A link to Passing loop would be helpful here.
  • carryed →carried
  • "The carriages were being built by Brown, Marshall & Co..." -- remove "being" . Or say something like: "The carriage builders Brown, Marshall & Co in Birmingham, stated that based on their experience they had expected the line to open at least two months late."
  • "The station staff should not have allowed the carriages to be waiting at the station." Is this your opinion?
Thanks Cassianto, I've sorted the simple stuff [14], I'll look at rephrasing these sentences when I get home from work this evening. Edgepedia (talk) 11:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The four sentences mentioned rewritten here. Edgepedia (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Waterloo, Keith and Inverness
  • "The Aberdeen Railway (AR) had opened from the south to Ferryhill, south of Aberdeen, in April 1850." -- Remove "had".
  • "It had been previously arranged that the Aberdeen and Great North would amalgamate, but this had been annulled that year, and the Aberdeen was seeking alliances with railways to the south." -- Ditto. I would swap "had" with "was".
  • "In 1854 the AR opened its Guild Street terminus in Aberdeen in 1854 and the GNoSR..." -- Repetion on 1854.
  • "...and passengers 1 April 1856." →"...and passengers on 1 April 1856."
  • "...although the number of services was later reduced to four." →"...although the number of services were later reduced to four."
  • "The link between Nairn and Keith was authorised on 21 July 1856, with the route having steeper gradients than had originally been proposed to reduce cost and the Great North contributing £40,000 towards a bridge over the Spey." -- Why would having steeper gradients reduce costs? Also, could we have an inflation conversion on £40,000. I would advise having this within the notes section and not mingling among the prose.
Fixed my poor grammar [15]. It made sense to remove a comma whilst I was doing that.
I think about how to add 'steeper gradient meant less work' into that last sentence. done
The instructions for {{Inflation}} say that it is not capable of inflating capital expenses. Looking on the template talk page using the UK National Gross Domestic Product per capita (i.e. the UKNGDPPC figures) seem to be one way of doing this, but this is not my expertise. I'll read about the subject a bit more. Edgepedia (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. The inflation tag is merely a personal preference you understand and not an obligatory action. I will leave this up to you. If you choose to use it, you could cut and paste this which I have done for you - ...£40,000 is equal to £3,976,793 in 2024 adjusted for inflation.[1]
Looking at this, you shouldn't use RPI/CPI figures for the cost of a project. Example three on that page looks at three different ways of accounting for inflation, from the cost of capital goods or the share of the project in the countries GDP. The problem is these estimate the value of a £40000 project in 1856 as from £3 to £78 million. (see [16])
Like I say, I'm not insistent on this. -- CassiantoTalk 13:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Expansion, 1854–1866
  • "Permission to build a line to serve the fishing ports at Peterhead and Fraserburgh had been received in 1846." -- Either we are going to say "Permission to build a line to serve the fishing ports at Peterhead and Fraserburgh had been received by 1846..." Or we are going to drop the "had" and say "Permission to build a line to serve the fishing ports at Peterhead and Fraserburgh was received in 1846..." (Which I favour btw).
  • "Aberdeen, Peterhead and & Fraserburgh Railway" -- Do you mean to use the ampersand or "and"? I would envisage the former.
  • "that year and the following" -- Simplify by saying "for two years".
  • WP:OVERLINK to Fraserburgh.
  • "...Aberdeen and Fraserburgh and Peterhead." -- repetition of "and".
  • "Three or four services a day ran between Aberdeen and Fraserburgh and Peterhead, the trains dividing at Maud and taking between 2 1⁄2 and 2 3⁄4 hours." -- Once the second "and" has been replaced by a comma, could the "and" be moved further on? -- I copy edited this.
  • "The railway was absorbed by the Great North of Scotland Railway on 1 August 1866." -- Not sure "absorbed" is the right word here, suggest "taken over" or "incorporated" or something similar? This goes for the other mentions later on. Is this a technical term?
  • "In June 1858 the line was leased to the GNoSR for a rental of £650." -- Per week, per month or annually?
  • Copy edit here.
  • "Plans to reach fishing ports at Macduff and Banff from Inverurie were proposed when the Great North was first suggested, but failed because of lack of support." -- Public, financial or otherwise?
  • Is "The Great North" a well-known abbreviated term for The Great North of Scotland Railway?
Yes, Vallance, Barclay-Harvey and Thomas & Turnock all use it. Edgepedia (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Worked by the GNoSR from 4 June 1860..." Are we missing a word from the start of this sentence?
  • OVERLINK to "Macduff".
  • OVERLINK to "Banff".
  • copy edit
  • "Most of the line was built with gradients up to 1 in 70..." →"Most of the line was built using gradients up to 1 in 70..."?
  • "The railway opened on 30 July 1859, with full services..." -- Full? Is that passenger and goods or one or the other?
  • I don't think its good using two separate abbreviated terms for The Great North of Scotland Railway. So far, we are using GNoSR and "The Great North". This needs to be consistent throughout.
Thank you. I'll should be able to work on these lunch time. Edgepedia (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changes here.
I think what looks like OVERLINKs to Fraserburgh and Macduff are because I'm linking to the town and then the station (this looks like Macduff). I have 'User:Ucucha/duplinks.js' installed, and I went through and deleted some here. I left those in the Rolling Stock section as readers could just jump to read that.
Excellent. As a personal rule, I think that links should not look the same. If you are linking to the station, then the link should carry that articles name. -- CassiantoTalk 20:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"built using gradients" sounds wrong to me - as if gradients were used in the construction.
Cool. Feel free to change any of my edits if you wish. -- CassiantoTalk 20:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will think about your comment from two abbreviations for the Great North of Scotland. Vallance and Barclay-Harvey using Great North, whereas Thomas and Turnock use Great North and GNSR. If I was to choose one, I would choose Great North. Edgepedia (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that would be better. -- CassiantoTalk 20:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... but progress was slow because of lack of money." →"... but progress was slow because of a lack of money."
  • "The line was opened on 1 July 1863 between Dufftown and Abernethy (later called Nethy Bridge). The line between Dufftown and Craigellachie became the main line..." -- Do we need to repeat Dufftown and Abernethy again?
  • "The Act also permitted..." -- Curious capitalisation of "act" here. Also, which act do you speak of?
  • 17 May 1861.[39]. -- Watch for stray punctuation.
  • "there was now a route between Keith and Elgin..." -- Prose. Best to stick to past tense.
  • " The 5 1⁄2-mile (8.9 km) line opened on 10 August 1852 with a special train from Elgin to a celebration in Lossiemouth. " -- Celebration of what?
  • "The GNoSR refused to hold its trains to connect with trains arriving at Guild Street..." -- Repetion of "trains". Might I suggest swapping the second "trains" with "those"
  • "...and approached Aberdeen Steam Navigation Company..." Definate article is so much better.
  • "...reduced for through traffic. and through ticketing by rail was not available until 1859, when the GNoSR joined the Railway Clearing House." -- Watch for capitalisation. Is this a sentence, or is simply a stray full stop?
  • "This would have built a 22-mile (35 km) long railway between Limpet Mill, to the north of Stonehaven on the SNER, to the GNoSR at Kintore." -- Did it not then?
  • Is the capitalisation for "Act" intended? Usually the name of the act is capitalised; do we know its name?
    • See my comment above; but cannot give further detail since I don't know which sentence "Act" occurs in. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hutcheon Street tunnel became its longest tunnel" -- Is there a way around repeating "tunnel"?
  • "The company survived after the railway mania bubble burst..."-- Idiomatic ending.
  • "Investors were still hard to find, but by limiting the railway to a line between Ferryhill, in Aberdeen, and Banchory it was possible to open on 7 September 1853 when a special train travelled from Aberdeen to Banchory." -- Something not quite right with this sentence: "Investors were still hard to find, but by limiting the railway to a line between Ferryhill in Aberdeen and Banchory; it was possible that it opened on 7 September 1853 when a special train travelled from Aberdeen to Banchory." ?
  • "...its Ferryhill station in Aberdeen" -- Do we need to be reminded of the fact it was located in Aberdeen again?
  • " After the extension of the Deeside opened in 1866 and the merger of the Banffshire the following year the Great North of Scotland Railway owned 226 1⁄4 route miles (364 km) of line and operated over a further 61 miles (98 km).[81][27] -- Watch for ref order at the end of this sentence.
  • "...and had cost business of equivalent value to a five per cent dividend." -- Look carefully at this: should it be "...and had cost the business an equivalent value to a five per cent dividend" or something similar?
  • Not sure saying "had cost dear" is encyclopaedic enough.
  • "On 27 November 1882 Inverythan Bridge on the Macduff Branch near Auchterless collapsed under a train as it was crossing. The locomotive was hauling five goods wagons, a brake van, two third class carriages, a first class carriage and brake third class carriage. The locomotive and tender crossed the bridge, but wagons and carriages fell..." -- Repetetive and redundent. Suggest: "On 27 November 1882 Inverythan Bridge on the Macduff Branch near Auchterless collapsed as a locomotive, which was hauling five goods wagons, a brake van, two third class carriages, a first class carriage and brake third class carriage, crossed. The accident killed five people who had been travelling in the first and second carriages and injured fifteen others." Something like that.
Changes here. Edgepedia (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By June 1880 the main line was doubled as far as Kintore, and in the next five years" →" By June 1880 the main line was doubled as far as Kintore, and over the next five years"
  • "The railway resolved to live down its reputation as a 'terrible railway' that ran 'funerally-paced trains' -- Who described it as such, and double quote marks should be used per MOS:QUOTEMARKS
  • "After trialling on the Fraserburgh line, the system was installed on the coast route in May 1889, and by 1 January 1893 it was in operation on all single-line sections."
  • Even though they are incorrect in format, I don't think the quotation marks in " 'Commissioners' Service' " add anything?
  • "Seasonal through services to Aberdeen began in 1899 with an up service in the morning and for some years there was also an afternoon up service that returned in the evening." →"Seasonal through services to Aberdeen began in 1899 with an up service in the morning and for some years, an afternoon up service that returned in the evening.
  • Why do italicise "Aberdeenshire Light Railway"?
  • ...and "Echt Light Railway"?
Changes here.
Regard's the Great North's reputation, the sentence in Thomas & Turnock (1993, p. 166) is

'Bristling with fight and notoriously cantankerous, as befitted a fine flower of the North East', the Great North was initially dubbed a 'terrible railway' running 'funerally-paced trains'.

There are a few pages listing sources in the chapter's bibliography, but these statements are not attributed. Edgepedia (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be worth attributing the book? -- CassiantoTalk 09:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking about this. I'm trying to summarise the tone of two pages of the book. Edgepedia (talk) 12:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote sentence here. Edgepedia (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • GNoSR's Elgin station had been described in the 1890s as a "miserable collection of dilapidated wooden sheds, bordering a large bare platform space completely open to the weather" -- Described by who?
  • "Aberdeen joint station was congested, resulting in delayed trains, and the low, open platforms were frequently covered in fish slime." -- Why? This sounds very odd. An elaboration of why it was covered in fish slime would be more helpful. Was it that it was prone to flooding from nearby sea?
  • "The railways were in a poor state after the war, costs having increased, with higher wages, the introduction of an eight-hour day and price of coal having risen" →"The railways were in a poor state after the war due to a rise in wages, the introduction of an eight-hour day and a surge in the price of coal."
Changes here. I've removed the quote here and rewritten the sentences. Edgepedia (talk) 12:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to link Germany.
  • "Sunday services were re-introduced; from 1928 Aberdeen suburban services ran hourly Sunday afternoon and evenings." A spot some repetition here as we are reminded twice of "Sunday": Suggest, "Sunday services were re-introduced; from 1928 Aberdeen suburban services ran hourly during the afternoon and evenings."
  • "The Lossiemouth and Banff branch closed in 1964 and the following year the St Combs branch, Dyce to Peterhead and Fraserburgh, the Speyside section..." Maybe it's me, but this line does not make sense. Are we sure of the punctuation within it?
  • Dyce should be linked upon first mention.
  • Multiple overlinking of 0-4-2.
  • Overlinking of 2-2-0.
  • "The financial situation in 1866 had precluded buying any more locomotives..." -- Whose financial situation? This is a new paragraph so some mention should be made to establish whose situation it was. Also, I would swap "had precluded buying any more locomotives" for "had precluded the purchasing of any more locomotives".
  • "Although there was only space for four locos..." -- Consistant use of "locomotives" preferred.
  • Are R. Stephenson & Co.the same as the earlier mentioned "Stephensons"? If so, this link should be moved to there and the full title given.
  • "three months before outbreak of war" → "three months before the outbreak of war".
  • Overlink to 4-4-0
  • "...and is currently on loan to Scottish Railway Museum at Bo'ness." →"...and is currently on loan to the Scottish Railway Museum at Bo'ness."
  • "The first carriages were 9-long-ton (9.1 t) four-wheelers, 21 feet 9 inches (6.63 m) long. Painted a dark brown with yellow lining and lettering, they had Newall's chain brake and a seat was provided for the guard on the roof. Two classes of accommodation were provided..." -- Repetition of "provided".
  • "Carriages were equipped with the Westinghouse air brake in the 1880s, and this became the standard in 1891." -- The standard what? Delete "the" from before "standard".
  • "Corridor carriages with both classes having access to a lavatory, lit with electric lamps using Stone's system and 36-foot (11 m) long on six wheels, appeared in 1896." -- This doesn't read right. Without wishing to sound pedantic, what was lit with electric lamps a d 36-foot long, the toilet or the carriage? Suggest: Corridor carriages for both classes had access to a lavatory and were lit with electric lamps using Stone's system and were 36-foot (11 m) long. The carriages were on six wheels, and appeared in 1896" or something similar.
  • "lit by electric lamps and steam heating" -- lit by steam heating?
  • Note F needs an ending citation.

That's it, review finished. This was a pleasure to read and deserves the gold star. I look forward to your resolving comments. Reviewing this reminded me of one of my favourite films. -- CassiantoTalk 22:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your time.
  • Note F is saying there is a conflict between two sources, which I have linked using {{harvtxt}}. I'm thinking that [12] linking to these same references is redundant.
  • Some things still to finish up, will be back when I'm done. Edgepedia (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changes here, here and here. I think I've covered everything, have I missed anything? Edgepedia (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – per resolved comments. Thank you for bringing this interesting article up to FA quality. -- CassiantoTalk 18:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Edgepedia (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods, and those that are should
  • File:Gordon_Highlander_steam_locomotive.jpg: ideally we'd want an OTRS message to confirm this permission; same for File:Steam_train_at_Banff_station.jpg
  • File:Cruden_Bay_Hotel_Tramway_car.jpg needs author's date of death and a US PD tag
  • File:GNoSR_No._45_at_Darlington_in_1925.jpg: on what grounds do we assert that the US copyright is expired? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikkimaria, I found one full stop that should have been there.
I'll contact the uploader and see if we can get OTRS messages for those photos; I've removed the Tramway car photo as I've seen this where a W A Camwell that took photographs of tramways from the 1930s was still alive in 1986 (photograph at the bottom). I've left a note on the talk page of the image on commons for a week or so to see if there's a reply. I'll have a look at 1925 photo, yes this wasn't published before 1923! diff Edgepedia (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the US licence on File:GNoSR_No._45_at_Darlington_in_1925.jpg to {{PD-1996}}. Edgepedia (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding File:Gordon_Highlander_steam_locomotive.jpg and File:Steam_train_at_Banff_station.jpg: Looking at comments on the uploader's talk page I think they did email something, but these emails haven't been matched with the photos. I've left a message there a couple of days ago, and will leave it a couple more days while I think about alternatives. Edgepedia (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've swapped out these two images, one with a post card I've bought. I'll pursue the licencing issues on commons, but I don't want to hold up this FAC. Can you check again please? Edgepedia (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With thanks to User:Sphilbrick, who found the OTRS message confirming permission, we have the Gordon Highlander back! Edgepedia (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
and I've restored the colour photo of Banff now we have received permission. Edgepedia (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments[edit]

  • Support Comments - taking a look now. I'll make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot notes below - Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The early expansion was followed by a period of forced economy, but the railway was refurbished in the early 1880s, express services began and by the end of that decade there was a suburban service in Aberdeen. - bit of a flow problem here - are the last two points part of the refurbishment? If so then an mdash would be good between them and the 1880s segment rather than a comma, or reword as "The early expansion was followed by a period of forced economy, but the railway was refurbished in the early 1880s, resulting in express services and by the end of that decade a suburban service in Aberdeen."
Although the items are connected - the refurbishment had to come first - it's a list of what happened in the 1880s. Does this flow better? Edgepedia (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Powers for a longer, but cheaper, route between the two towns were secured on 25 May 1860. - "Plans"?
I'm pretty sure that "powers" is correct. Public railways in the UK needed to secure an Act of Parliament (see my comments of 22:09, 5 September 2013 above) even for extensions to an existing line; such an Act grants the necessary powers. The plans will have been prepared before presenting the bill to Parliament. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok - maybe "powers" needs to be linked or explained then.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the building of the sixth or seventh railway in a sequence; before I've used permission and authorised. Is powers so different or is there a better word (without repeating myself)? I think linking this far into the article would run into OVERLINK problems, so I've clarified the process in the first section, linking some more words after Central London Railway, see here. Edgepedia (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
extension of the line to Dufftown into Strathspey was (sought and) obtained on 17 May 1861 - can trim bracketed bit as implied by verb "obtained" (as work must have been done to get it) - "achieved" is a verb which might work better.
I don't think so, see my post above. The date concerned is that upon which Royal Assent was given. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The gradients were not severe, but the line required three bridges over the Spey, together with many of the river's tributaries - does this mean 3 bridges over all of them, or 3 over the Spey and more over the tributaries?
Clarification here. Edgepedia (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
complaining that they were not paying. - who were not paying...or does it mean the lines were not profitable?
By not paying I meant the services were not profitable. Change here. Edgepedia (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - prose is good overall, flowing better in locomotive section. Possibly a few "and" run-on clauses could be tweaked but no real deal-breakers. Just a few queries above and we're over the line. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changes and comments above. Edgepedia (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review Just a few things

  • Footnote 128 ("History". Inverurie Loco Works F.C. Retrieved 21 June 2013.). Should disclose it is a reprinted news story.
done here
  • According to this, source 158 is a wiki. Why is it reliable?
replaced with the Working Timetable from National Rail here
  • I don't see any evidence of editorial review in the two sources 214 ("GNOSR No. 34". Stately Trains. Retrieved 27 July 2013.
and "Vintage Railway Carriages, Cinderellas or Saviours: GNOSR No. 34". Stately Trains. Retrieved 27 July 2013.). These seem to be the effort of one person. Do they satisfy WP:RS?
I've simplified the text and replace one of the pages with a page from the railway that runs the trains here.
  • I would recommend web archiving some of these small organisation web sites that might be subject to changes.
  • The capitalisation of titles in the "Books" section seems inconsistent.
  • On the first external link, where are you getting the stated title of that web page from?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified here

I'll look at the web archiving and book titles tonight. Edgepedia (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I've archived what I think are the webpages that are relied on for historical information. I didn't archive the current information, as I don't think an archive could be a reliable source for what is currently happening with the railway, the heritage railways or rolling stock.
I've also tidied up the book names. Looking at Butt on amazon, it appears that only the first letter of the sub-title is capitalised. I've standardised the formatting of the series titles and volume numbers. Edgepedia (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2013 (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 10:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC) [17].[reply]

No. 36 Squadron RAAF[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hot on the heels of Nick-D's successful nomination for No. 38 Squadron, I present another transport formation whose duties were at times so closely entwined with those of No. 38 that the two squadrons occasionally operated as one. No. 36 Squadron is Australia's heavy airlift unit, operating the biggest asset in the RAAF's inventory, the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III. It was also the first squadron outside the US to fly the venerable Lockheed C-130 Hercules, which it employed for almost 50 years. The "trashies" (trash haulers) may not have a particularly glamorous job, but they do have a vital and, I think, interesting one. Tks to all involved in the recent GA and MilHist A-Class reviews and, in advance, to all those taking part here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENTS generated by a first reading:

  • In the lead, the red-linked 91st Composite Wing leaves the reader wondering how it is composite; has it mixed types of aircraft? is it an interservice and/or international unit? Greater clarity here would be welcome for the lay reader.
    • First interpretation is correct, as the redlinked article (currently under development) will explain. If you feel it raises too many questions then rather than clutter the lead with an explanation I think I'd rather just use "No. 90 Wing" (in which case I'd probably better alter "No. 86 (Transport) Wing" to "No. 86 Wing" for consistency).
      • Looks like a reasonable solution. Details of the wing(s) concerned will be at the other end of the links.
  • 27 March 1943 crash: Phrase "...four crew and nineteen passengers, twenty of whom..." leads to some strange mental maths. Is there minus one death among passengers, or was one passenger serving as a crew member? I suppose there were more than 23 aboard, but that remains murky. Please consider rewording.
    • Well, four crew and nineteen passengers add up to twenty-three occupants, and twenty of those twenty-three were RAAF/WAAAF. It reads okay to me but if you think it's confusing I can just say twenty-three occupants without breaking down into crew/passengers (I think that'd be more detail than necessary).
      • As you have access to the source, and I don't, you know the details. However, obviously one individual cannot be both passenger and crew, and a female crew member is extremely unlikely, given the era.
  • "The squadron achieved a total of 200,000 accident-free flying hours in C-130s in 1984." Did they fly those 200,000 hours within that single year? Or did they fly 200,000 hours by that year? If the latter, then a small but vital change in wording seems indicated, to "...C-130s by 1984."
  • Likewise: "In 1990, the squadron achieved 100,000 accident-free flying hours on the C-130H."
    • No, it's total hours, not yearly hours. I understand where you're coming from but "by [year]" to me sounds like it had achieved the figure as the year began. Does "during [year]" make it clearer?
  • More later. "I shall return!"Georgejdorner (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENTS from a second reading:

  • In lead, Boeing C-17 Globemaster III would benefit from being hashmarked to connect to the RAAF under [Operational history].
    • I do have Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service under the See also section so I felt it was fair enough to simply link to the aircraft article elsewhere...
      • Is it done to have the See alsos at the top of the article?
      • However, as you point out, there is a valid link.
  • Likewise, in lead, Indonesia–Malaysia Konfrontasi could be hashmarked down to "Australia" under "Commonwealth Order of Battle". In that case, the addition of 36 Squadron to said Order of Battle seems in order.
    • Well, I feel the link is there to provide more info about the conflict and they'll learn more about it from the main article...
      • One of the things they will "learn" is that 36 Squadron did not serve in the Confrontation, because it is not referred to in that article.
        • The squadron wasn't based in the theatre of operations, but it did fly there, as evidenced by the source, which specifically mentions the Confrontation and the squadron's part in it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A similar case, but more complex: link in lead to Vietnam War could be hashmarked down to "Other countries' involvement/Pro-Saigon/Australia and New Zealand". However, it would be more particular if linked to Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War, then hashmarked down to "Australia's military involvement/Increased Australian commitment, 1965–1970". In either case, or even if not hashmarked, mention of 36 Squadron should be inserted into article.
    • Similar to my response above, I think that going down too deeply turns the link into an Easter egg, but a fair compromise given the scope of the conflict would probably be to simply link to Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War, which I've now done.
      • Again, I doubt the utility of a link to an article where 36 Squadron is not mentioned. However, I view the link as valid if the mention of 36 is inserted in the target article.
        • Again, given the sources explicitly connect the squadron with the war, even though it was never actually based in Vietnam (like 35 Sqn was, for instance) I think this article is the one being reviewed, and its success or failure here shouldn't be prejudiced by what is or isn't in other articles. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not my intent, cobber. This article is what it is.
  • Similar linking for Iraqi and Afghani wars is recommended.
    • Actually I'd already linked the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts to the relevant articles on Australian involvement.
      • You are correct in noting that you do mention the squadron's participation in the above conflicts. My personal experience in working order of battle in MI seems to have clouded my views.
      • I have also caught grief over failing to post return links from articles, and thought I should bring it up on behalf of the community. You and I seem to be in a minority that believes that information need not be repeated at both ends of a link.
  • Need a break. I'll return.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT For Featured Article

  • P. S. Out of curiosity, do you have any idea why the RAAF does not operate a C-130 gunship?
    • Many tks for support, George. I don't remember coming across anything about the RAAF even considering a C-130 gunship when Nick-D and I were researching/writing Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service; in Vietnam, and afterwards, the Australian military's focus was helicopter gunships. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've also never seen any suggestion that this would be a useful capacity for the RAAF. The US military is the only operator of C-130s which has converted any to gunships - even Britain hasn't done this despite having a large C-130 fleet and a large army forces deployed in combat zones since the 1990s. The only sub-variants I've seen references to the RAAF considering were taking out options for some KC-130J tankers (which were never purchased, probably as they would have been inferior to the KC-30 which were ordered a few years later) and the secretive conversion of one of the C-130Hs to a signals intelligence aircraft (sometimes designated as an EC-130H). Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I reviewed this in the ACR, and was involved in developing two of the articles on closely related topics to FA status. I have the following comments

  • "Heavier logistical support" might be a bit obscure: how about "more complex servicing" or the like? (it seems that the RAAF handles the day-to-day maintenance tasks needed to keep the aircraft flying, while Boeing handles the periodic inspections and major servicing as well as any large-scale repairs)
    • Okay by me.
  • "a squadron detachment" - could this be simplified to just "a detachment" without any loss of detail?
    • Funny, I thought I'd written simply "detachment" before and you'd added "squadron" during an earlier copyedit -- must've been someone else! Needless to say, happy to remove it...
  • "were responsible for delivering" -> "delivered" seems simpler and more accurate given that this is about what they achieved
    • Yep, why not.
  • Do we know why it was decided to "upgrade" No. 30 Transport Unit to a squadron? I presume that this was due to its large size and significant role. Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh, I'm afraid your guess is as good as mine, Nick. While I've been drafting No. 91 Wing RAAF I found something in the Korean War section of Going Solo that connected the redesignation with the transfer of four Dakotas from 38 Sqn in Malaya to Korea, but Stephens has got his dates wrong there, as the transfer happened in November 1950 (which oddly enough he mentions in the book's Malayan Emergency section and which I confirmed by checking the 30 Comms Unit / 30 Transport Unit / 36 Sqn ops book).
    • Tks for reviewing Nick, though I think "current" is implied strongly enough in the first section not to need it in the header, as it isn't needed anywhere in the infobox (nor in a similar section in the recent 2OCU Featured Article). Just sayin'... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my comments are now addressed. Please feel free to tweak the heading of the first section back if you con't think my change was an improvement :) Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Treatment of journals/magazines seems a bit inconsistent: compare FN37 (issue: page) and 58 ((issue): page) and 59 (issue. page). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- This article, like much of Ian's work, meets all of the FA criteria and is deserving of the FA status. I've got no objections. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, Phil. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2013 (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 10:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC) [18].[reply]

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)'[reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because… we think it meets the criteria. The Bakke decision had a huge impact although it did not actually, of itself do much, but it caused affirmative action to survive to live another day. Bakke himself got into med school, which was what he cared about. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning oppose.

  • No alt text on images.
That is not required. If you like, I will add them, if you will undertake to tweak them to your satisfaction.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason that the suggested format for WP:SCOTUS/SG articles was not followed? It would have simplified some of the following comments.
It did not entirely work. I looked at it and also at some FA articles on Supreme Court decisions. These mostly ignored any question of public interest or impact and treated the case in a vacuum. That is not possible with Bakke. So while we did the formatting with an eye to that, remember, the page says, vary as necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should add to that, that none of the law FAs I saw did much with the papers by the various justices in the Library of Congress. I suspect that is due to a lack of secondary sources using them.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entire article--WP:MOSLAW not followed. "Where both primary and secondary sources are available, one should cite both. While primary sources are more "accurate", secondary sources provide more context and are easier on the layperson. Where primary and secondary sources conflict factually, the primary source should be given priority."
  • Although the primary source is available, it is not cited
I take it you mean the Court's opinion. Alright. I'll put in parallel cites where necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done through DeFunis, continuing to work on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Completely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede & Infobox.
  • The holding is not correct. The Court held "The judgment below is affirmed insofar as it orders [Bakke's] admission to Davis and invalidates [the university's] special admissions program, but is reversed insofar as it prohibits [the university] from taking race into account as a factor in its future admissions decisions" Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 436 U.S. 265, 267 (1978).
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decision section.
  • This is a plurality opinion. It is mentioned and wikilinked in the lede, and promptly forgotten. The fact that a plurality opinion does not set binding precedent needs to be covered.
That is addressed. While Bakke was technically a plurality opinion, it the question of whether it set precedent was addressed in Grutter. It did, just like Brennan said. That position has prevailed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I put a clear mention of this fact and will look for and add a cite on the effect of a plurality decision. I had assumed people knew, but that's the lawyer in me.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who delivered the judgment of the court? Note that "judgment of the court" is a term of art identifying a plurality opinion.
  • Section is too short and does not outline the differences in the opinions of the various justices.
I've expanded re Powell, and will look at the other opinions later on today, though I do not wish to go into the same detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the two opinions written or joined by four justices, I do not think the individual justice opinions should be expanded as they are not very significant.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confusing language. Who joined with Justice Powell and for what purpose?
  • References.
  • The first citation to Bakke uses a short form citation, i.e. "Bakke, 438 U.S. at 277." The first time the case is cited should be long form, with subsequent citations being short form. In other words, the initial citation should read "Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 277 (1978)." Short form citations can follow.
  • Inserted for Bakke, Green, DeFunis, and Swann. Will follow for Bakke's progeny.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll come back later to outline further concerns. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. If I can address them, I will. If you are not happy, please allow me to withdraw it and I will send it for a peer review, although I did and it sat uncommented for two weeks. I can call in some favors.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't withdraw it yet. I think that we can fix the minor issues that I've brought up so far, plus the ones I hadn't gotten to. I don't think we're at the withdrawing the nom point yet. GregJackP Boomer! 15:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, not a problem, and thanks. I'd like to see this promoted, it is an important law article and despite my profession, I've done very little work on contemporary law issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will you consider striking the "leaning oppose" language now with these changes? I fear it may deter other reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, continued, leaning support.

  • Use of Latin terms. Cert. is not italicized at all, but all the amicus (amici) are italicized. I would recommend italicizing on the first use, then roman type thereafter, but whatever is chosen should be consistent.
I don't think certiorari should be linked, it is used enough that it has become part of the language. Our article certiorari, while slightly inconsistent, mostly does not italicize. If you grant that, it is consistent.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to leave open, to get any other reviewer(s) to comment on it--I'm not so tied to it that I would oppose on that basis. GregJackP Boomer! 03:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amicus curiae is wikilinked twice.
Delinked the second usage. I put in the Rita Clancy passage only yesterday, because the clippings file I consulted at Cal-Berkeley made such a point of it, that even though she is utterly forgotten, it's worth mentioning she got a year ahead of Bakke.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourth paragraph of Acceptance and briefs section has one cite for the entire paragraph--it probably needs additional cites to support the material.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not required, but a nice touch if available, consider linking to the oral argument that is normally available at Oyez.
It is, as is the announcement of the opinions. Linked as EL.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference footnotes - some end with a period, some do not. Due to the templates, I would go with a period, but whichever way is chosen, it needs to be consistent.
Dotted notes.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 17:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those. I was uncertain on certiorari, I'm of the opinion that it has migrated into the English language and does not need italics, whereas amicus curiae has not. Our article, certiorari is a bit inconsistent but generally leaves cert. unitalicized. I'm easy on this one, though, if you feel strongly about it. I will return and complete later in the day, got to do some stuff now.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've got everything. You may want to check. Thanks. You've improved the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure on certiorari either. I lean the other way, but not so much as to sink an FAC over it. I left it open to see what other reviewers thought. GregJackP Boomer! 03:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. OK, I'll be guided by what other reviewers think. I really appreciate your picky but clueful review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (own work, CC, PD-USGov, PD-US-no-notice). Sources and authors provided.

Thank you for that. The images were all last minute and it's good to know we did it right.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Quadell

A very strong candidate. Thorough and well-sourced. But I have a couple of questions about the references and bibliography.

  • Some references (e.g. 34 or 53) refer to "Complete Case Record". Do those refer to the third entry in the bibliography? Another reference refers to "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke" (10). Do those refer to the same bibliographic entry? If so, they should be consistent.
The case record (yes, the third entry) is a bound and printed version of the various papers in the case, the Supreme Court's opinion of course, and the ones from the California courts, and the the briefs (at the Supreme Court level only) from the parties and the almost sixty friend of the court briefs. Add to that a bunch of briefs on the special briefing on Title VI the Court ordered, and you'll see why it occupies three rather impressively-thick volumes. You see, although the record is available to the public, getting a copy in the pre-internet age would have been ten cents a page. So in major cases, like this, that publisher would publish the record, and libraries and law offices who wanted it would buy them. I viewed the copy in the Cal-Berkeley Education/Psychology library.
Now, the other thing is, footnote 10, is the published opinion of the Court. This is in the format WikiProject Law wants it (see above) wants it. The full case name in Blue Book format on first use, thereafter, just the one word short form of the case (usually the petitioner's name, but in this case by universal custom the respondent's). I've varied a bit from the formal format, I'd have to check, but I don't think we'd spell out "University" The numbers and letters after the case name are the volume and page number of the United States Reports, which is how Supreme Court cases are conventionally cited (note the last one is not, as that volume of the United States Reports is not yet out. In the interim, again by the Blue Book, which governs how lawyers cite sources and seems to have been adopted by WP:LAW in practice, we use the Supreme Court Reports. Probably more than you wanted to know.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed information! – Quadell (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bibliography contains four books and two journal entries. But the references contain four more books, and many additional journal entries. There doesn't seem to be a clear reason. Would you be willing to move all books and journal entries down into the "bibliography", for consistency's sake?
If a source is used only briefly or not heavily relied upon, I prefer to put it in the references for the convenience of the reader who is off to the library to grab a handful of references on Bakke. I want him to have a greater chance of striking gold, if you get my drift.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sure, for the Ball and Schwartz sources that makes sense. But consider some of the others in the (small) bibliography. Stevens: cited once, one page used. Wilkinson: cited twice, two pages used. Epstein & Knight: cited twice, four pages used. And compare those to some sources not in the bibliography: O'Neill (cited five times, six pages used); Dreyfuss (cited 5 times, 2 pages used); and Schulman (cited 4 times, 4 pages used). It still looks arbitrary to me. – Quadell (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Your thoughts on the newspaper articles?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion? I'd just as soon leave newspaper articles out of the bibliography. – Quadell (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, I made a very few minor reference formatting changes. Besides these, the references all look good.
    • I've read the article again this morning, and I still can't find any problems worth mentioning involving the clarity, grammar, or organization of the article. It's admirably neutral and balanced, and seems reasonably complete. I don't have any opinion on the italicizing of legal terms. – Quadell (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, I am glad you think well of it. I will move those journal articles to biblio this morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this article is among the best Wikipedia has to offer, and fulfills all the criteria for a featured article. – Quadell (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your consideration and kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cirt, got that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, looks a bit better, thanks. — Cirt (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and sorry I never managed to get together with you on that Hill thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no problems, hopefully we can work together on something else in the future related to Freedom of speech! :) — Cirt (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: An interesting and important case. A few matters need attention:

Lead
  • The first paragraph is a somwehat confused summary of the main aspects of the case. First sentence fine, but the information in the second sentence needs reworking and simplifying along the lines of: "However, the decision ruled that specific quotas, such as the 16 out of 100 seats set aside for minority students by the University of California, Davis School of Medicine, were impermissible."
  • It needs to be made clearer that the second paragraph summarise the position that existed prior to the Bakke case. Maybe just add the words "Before the case..." to the the beginning of the paragraph.
  • I still think these words are necessary, or at leart "previously" before "outlawed. Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
State of the law
  • How much of the first paragraph is relevant to this case? For example, the information on school children and busing seems somewhat removed from the topic.
It all goes to the question of what schools are required to do in the interest of diversity, and what they may do.
  • I don't question the general purpose, it's the level of detail required to make the point. Specifically, the last two sentences of the paragraph seem superflouos, tending to take the reader's attention away from the thrust of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When first mentioning the U.C.-Davis affirmative action program you should say something about the "sixteen" quota. For example, did other college programs have similar, comparable quotas or was this an isolated case?
I think people should know the situation on education law prior to the Bakke case. I am inclined to let it stand, though I certainly will be influenced by what reviewers may say.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this answers my previous point. I am now suggesting that, when you first mention U.C.-Davis's affirmative action program you include a mention of the 16 quota, which was after all the most controversial factor in the program. Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allan Bakke section
  • UK readers won't know what "GPA" means, nor be able to interpret the scores. A footnote would help.
I will pipe to grading (education)
  • "This may well have cost him admission" – I assume "this" refers to his lateness, not to his mother's illness, which is how it reads?
  • "Only one black student and six Latinos were admitted under the regular admissions program in that time from, ..." The phrasing "in that time from" doesn't make sense.
  • "Latino" should be linked
  • Still unlinked
Lower court history
  • The term "set-asides", as shorthand for the places reserved to minorities, should be clarified at first mention.
  • "The California Supreme Court was considered one of the most liberal appellate courts, and it was widely expected that it would find the program to be legal." These are rather broad statements which are not supported by sources.
It is taken from the Ball book, which is cited as a source. It was not practical to separate out text between the sources.
It would be possible to add the Ball pp. 58–60 ref to the end of the sentence I've quoted – but I'm not insisting on this Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I do that, then people assume everything from the last footnote on is ONLY from Ball, which is not the case.
Acceptance and briefs
  • "The university requested that the Supreme Court stay the order..." As several Supreme Courts have been mentioned in the article, perhapd clarify that this is a reference to the US Supreme Court.
  • "—the university had not introduced evidence of past discrimination, or of bias in the MCAT". You have lost me here; what evidence were the civil rights groups seeking?
I've tweaked that. Bakke was basically tried on facts that were almost agreed. The civil rights groups felt that the university should have included evidence of pas discrimination, for example against Chinese, at the university in general, not just the Davis medical school. They also felt that the MCAT like other standardized tests was discriminatory against those not from wealthy white culture. "Regatta" was, I believe, the classic example of a term supposedly found on the test that someone from the 'hood would not know.
  • "The parties duly filed their briefs." That may be taken as read, surely?
I don't disagree, but it provides a useful way of moving the timeline forward in the article. If not, the events in the rest of the paragraph which are related in time to the briefing would need either dating or to be related to something else.
  • "...early drafts of the brief both supported affirmative action and indicated that the program should be struck down and Bakke admitted." Eh? This is the US government's brief, supporting both sides of the case? I can't make sense of it; is clarification possible?
Affirmative action was not yet a uniform Democratic stance. Some, especially Jews, did not like it, preferring a strict merit-based approach, in part because of the Jewish experience with "quotas" as limits. Tweaked a bit.
Argument and deliberation
  • I'm afraid I don't get the "joke" in the first paragraph – legal humour? Harvard humour? – but never mind. The only significant point in this section is the use of the word "affirm" in: "...the lower court decision would be affirmed in part..." I think this should be "confirmed", to avoid the more general meaning of the word "affirm" in the article.
I think I have a "HARVARD SUCKS" button from my student days in a drawer somewhere. They generally did, although they now use their cachet to attract basketball players. Mr. Cox, however, would only know that they have traditionally (at least after 1930 or so) had little athletic success. Obviously he would have been well-advised not to give up his day job.
Indeed. My real (very minor) point, however, was the use of the word "affirmed" later in the section, and a suggestion that this be changed to "confirmed", meaning essentially the same, to avoid possible confusion.
Affirmed is a term of art. Supreme Court justices are confirmed by the Senate, then they affirm lower court decisions, sometimes. That is legal terminology that cannot be synonymed. A law student consulting the article would wonder why we avoided the obvious legal term.
Decision
  • One small punc issue: I think after "The justices penned six opinions" a semicolon, not a comma + and, is required.
Powell's opinion
  • The section is a little dense in legal language, and not always easy to follow. By way of simplication, could some of Powell's preliminary thinking be omitted? E.g. could the section effsctively begin with the third sentence: "Powell determined that the affirmative program was not simply a goal…"?
Sorry about the legal phrasing, and if any of it is too heavy, I will alter it. But I find it is best just to use the terminology rather than to dance around it. I don't think the TItle VI should be deleted, as it is important if not sexy, so I've split the paragraph there.
OK – it makes more sense when you read it slowly.
You are seeing examples of how I would write in a professional capacity.
  • Should he suddenly become "Justice Powell" in the second paragraph?
Just an alteration from the eternal drone of "Powell, Powell, Powell". As such things have been mentioned in reviews in the past, I try to be proactive.
  • The following long sentence has grammar issues: "He cited past cases that found that when an individual was entirely foreclosed from opportunities or benefits provided by the government and enjoyed by those of a different background or race, that this was a suspect classification". I think the third "that" is one too many.
  • You need to keep "that found" rather than "finding", otherwise the meaning becomes slightly ambiguous. Only the third "that" needs to go. Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've played with it a bit. It is an awkward sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that "concur in" works; "concur" means "agree".
The quote from Stevens? Not sure that I see a problem. Stevens agreed that Bakke should be admitted, so he agreed with the part of the SCOTUS opinion that affirmed the California Supreme Court. He disagreed with the rest.
Sorry, I wasn't questioning that, merely the use of the word "in" in the setence beginning "In a part of the opinion concurred in by Chief Justice Burger and his allies...". I think you "concur", possibly "concur with", but you don't "concur in. Maybe US usage is different; the point is trivial so let's leave it. Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is US law usage, note that the justices "concurred in the judgment".
Other opinions
  • "In verbally introducing their opinion in the Supreme Court courtroom..." Unnecessary detail
It needs to be in there because that quote is not in the four-justice opinion and someone looking for it won't find it there. This is Brennan talking individually, not for the four justices.
  • "those justices" – is this referring to Brennan and his co-signatories?
Reaction
Minor, but "Bakke" has become "Allan Bakke" in the final paragraph
See above re Powell. Bakke is especially overused as he also names the case.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath
  • "In 1996, Californians by initiative..." What does "by initiative" mean in this context?
  • "The regents, to secure a diverse student body, implemented policies such as allowing the top 4% of students in California high schools guaranteed admission to the University of California System". It is not at all clear how the poolicy quoted would contribute to a "diverse" student body. "Elite", more likely.
In many high schools in California in the inner city, that 4% will be heavily minority. Likely someone at the edge of the 4 percent at some inner city high school might not be in the top twenty percent at a public high school in an affluent area.

I will try and add a sources review in the next day or so. Brianboulton (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate that. Thank you for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few points outstanding above. I am proceeding with the sources review. Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The last bullet statement on "diverse" v. "elite" - no change is needed, diverse is the correct statement for the United States. By accepting the top 4% of all high schools, including inner-city, high minority schools, the number of minorities gaining admittance increases. You are using the correct verbiage and should not change that point. GregJackP Boomer! 19:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but the point needs clarifying in the text, as you have done here. Brianboulton (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will review sources and see if something can be added that will illuminate things for those in need of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a brief statement, but would welcome comments from reviewers on this point.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the brief addition is sufficient. Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think I've addressed the remaining individual and supplemental points, as well as those in the peer review below. I did think about the legal jargon and did look at FAs on Supreme Court cases. Perhaps I am too close to the picture, but I don't see anything out of line.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review All sources of appropriate qulity and reliability. A couple of minor format points:

  • Ref 94 says "O'Neill"; source says "O'Neil"
  • Ref 107: in a different format – not templated.

That's all. Brianboulton (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I still have a handful of minor concerns, insufficient in my view to withhold support:

  • I don't fully understand why you don't mention the "16" quota in the second para of the "State of the law" section, where you outline U.C.-Davis's affirmative action policy – of which the quota was surely a principal factor.
Oh. Because the number wasn't always the same. It rose from 8 to 16 when the class size doubled, I believe in 1971. As Justice Powell was kind enough to give the details in his opinion, I have added it.
  • You seem resistant to linking Latino; is there a reason for this?
Just an oversight. My time has been rushed the last few days.
  • Ref 107 format still looks wrong.
It seems identical, format-wise to 102. Can you point out the exact issue?

I'd be grateful if you commented specifically on these, even if you don't think any action is necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have, you should know by now that although I have no pretentious to be Homer, I do nod from time to time. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have always taken your Homeric qualities as read, and shall continue to do so despite your modest protestations. The ref 107 to which I referred earlier became 108 when you added a new ref yesterday. The point at issue with 108, scarcely a major concern, is that unlike the others it does not use a template and thus has a slightly different format. Men have been shot for less, of course, but it's a matter for you. This is a revealing article which deserves to be read. Pity it doesn't have a more welcoming title, but you can't do much about that. Brianboulton (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words. I did not template any of the case names, which was the condition of the article as I got it. I did spot a couple of minor inconsistencies in linking and so forth, and I will clear those up. I think the article will come in handy when a law student realises he is next to be called upon, and surreptitiously obtains the facts of the case from us. I do not remember Bakke coming up in my Con Law class, but memory is fading of the law school experience, thankfully.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2013 (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 10:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC) [19].[reply]

Cabbage[edit]

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC), User:Sasata[reply]

Sasata and I are nominating this article after working on it for the past couple of years, in an effort to get another major vegetable article up to featured quality. It went through a GA review in 2012, and Sasata and I (mainly Sasata!) have spent more time buffing it this year. At this point, we believe it's ready for a run at FAC. We look forward to your comments! Dana boomer (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2013 (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, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images the photos all have seem to be freely licensed.HalfGig (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd round the inches in the Description section as these are all ballpark numbers in cm as well. convert templates often of limited use....

Support: Thank you for addressing my concerns. Praemonitus (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: the article is in pretty good shape overall and I think it's FA worthy. But I did have a few concerns:
  • "Cabbage (Brassica oleracea or variants) is a leafy green biennial, grown as an annual vegetable for its dense-leaved heads": I think the opening statement is mildly terse and could be clarified. Thus: biennial plant ... annual vegetable crop.
  • "...cabbage and other brassicas (these plants are combined by the FAO for reporting purposes) for...": currently the parenthetical text disrupts the flow.
  • I've removed this (detail retained for article proper). Sasata (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed wording – better? Sasata (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an illustration of the cabbage flower suitable for presentation in the Description section? A picture of the wild cabbage would be helpful as well.
  • I've added a picture of the inflorescence. Will see if there's a nice image of the wild cabbage (and a way to make it fit). Sasata (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Factors that result... that result ...": please fix the double use.
  • Among the references, there's some inconsistency in the layout of the author lists. For example, "Delahaut, K. A. and Newenhouse, A. C" compared to "Becker, Robert F.; Bjorkmann, Thomas". The same issue exists in the "Cited literature" section.
  • Fixed these (sources with only two authors should now be separated by "and"). Sasata (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were a few other instances of repeated wording, but I think I have most of those addressed. Praemonitus (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments; let us know if there's more fixes. Sasata (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this is a highly Eurocentric article. China and India produce over 60% of the world's crop, yet the article is all about the West. From the history ("a favorite vegetable of Australians") to the illness ("Two outbreaks of E. coli in the United States") to medicinal use ("In the United States, cabbage has been used as a hangover cure"), there are several trivial anecdotes about the vegetable in the West. On the other hand, of the major producers, India is not mentioned once (apart from the table) and China maybe once (bean curd).

There needs to be a more global view on the subject; in particular I think it is very important to note how a crop from Europe came to become so popular in China and India, and the story of how it is grown there, etc.—indopug (talk) 06:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. As the article explains, most of the cabbage grown in China is Chinese cabbage (but the FAO lumps several Brassicas together for reporting purposes), so the subject of this article is not as popular there as a cursory examination of the numbers indicate. We'll try to redress the balance in other sections. Sasata (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indopug, after consultation with my co-nominator, we have independently concluded that the balance of the article accurately reflects the sources we have used. I've tried in vain to find useable mentions of cabbage in China that aren't about Brassica rapa. Have added a few bits about cabbage production/use in India, and medicinal use in Egypt. If there is anything specific you think is missing that is discussed in a RS you know about, we'd be happy to consider including it. Sasata (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my oppose. A Google Books search for "cabbage india" turns up quite a bit though. This and this, at the first glance, especially seem useful.
I've made the same Google books search, but failed to turn up much that I could add. The first book you give is not available to purchase from Amazon, nor at the publisher themselves! The second has some history that is more or less already included in the article. I've since added a few bits about Indian cabbage history from other sources; please have a look and see if the balance is more to your satisfaction. Sasata (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any indication whatsoever about the percent of regular cabbage grown in China? Then maybe you can concentrate on that.—indopug (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked but not turned up anything. It seems that China does not report their output stats to the FAO, and these numbers are estimates. Sasata (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Minor: in that table, just write out the country names (and just China should suffice). There's no need of either the flags or the links.—indopug (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "Agriculture in xxx" links are useful and relevant to this article, so I've left them in. Shortened PRC to China. Left the flags in for now—I can't really tell from MOS:FLAG if they're appropriate or not, but will not complain if someone else removes them. Sasata (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT All concerns addressed. reviewing. I do not share the concerns of the editor above, as cabbage is oleracea and the Chinese varities are rapa. Plus it looks like you have addressed his/her concerns. But I do see a few tweaks that may improve the article:

  • One redirect to fix: White cabbage (redirect page) --> Cabbage FIXED
  • Ran citation bot and it may have flagged a couple things, check it here my eyes can't tell if there's anything major in there or not. Reflinks passed 100% OK
  • Looked through it and don't see anything... Dana boomer (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Taxonomy and etymology section, it reads a bit awkwardly in the second paragraph, simply because the word "cabbage" appears too many times, perhaps you can streamline that a bit? FIXED
  • The sentences beginning, ""Cabbage" was originally used to refer to multiple.." and ""Cabbage" is also a part of common names for several unrelated species. These include..." in the middle and at the end of the second paragraph (which is otherwise on etymology) would make better sense in the first paragraph (discussing varieties) or, perhaps, their owb paragraph in-between the two. At any rate, the section is a bit klunky and needs to be polished up a bit. FIXED
  • I did a bit of work in this section, rearranging and trying to remove some of the usages of "cabbage", and I think Sasata took a couple out too. Any better? Dana boomer (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • History section: Curious if your source literally stated "summer wheat" - and if it's an alternative name for something like buckwheat or a bread wheat of some form (one google search hinted at this, most google hits just had to do with beer brewing...)? Can you verify the material, seeing as how it's in hardcopy? I've heard of spring wheat and winter wheat but not summer wheat. Also, if your source gave a date for domestication of these other crops - seems odd to pick wheat, which is extremely ancient, the wheat article you link indicates that particularly einkorn goes back to 8000 BC or so, way farther than 1000 BC; peas are a little closer in the timeline. May want to clean that up a bit. Fixed
  • The source specifically says summer wheat. The quote is "the crop was almost certainly a late domesticate compared to the primary domesticates of the Near East center such as summer wheat, barley, pea and lentil." Dana boomer (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Any other sources on this topic that would serve as a cross-check? There is about a 5000 year span there, I guess it's not a big deal and I won't withhold support over this, but given that you wikilink to wheat, and that article contains no mention of "summer" wheat, may want to either just say "wheat" or maybe see if there is a specific intent to refer to something like the types of wheat used for bread flower or beer-brewing (which, I think, are the later varieties, and some wheat beers are called "Summer" beer... but don't want to go into OR land)
  • Wonder if the bit on the Guinness Book of World Records should be in history or under cultivation? not a big deal.
  • Under cultivation problems, is it appropriate to discuss solutions, or is that too "how-to" for a plant article? Addressed, OK
  • I think it's getting into a bit "how-to", which is something we really need to stay away from to avoid sounding like a seed catalog. Plus, there are so many different solutions to a lot of these that it would start being a laundry list. Personally, I think it's better to just link the problems and let those articles give additional information, if available. Dana boomer (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just made an edit to the Production section that I think makes it flow better, revert and ducuss if it didn't help. Too many (parentheses) make for awkward reading. You may want to do a bit of a hunt and destroy elsewhere in the article, but that was the spot that jumped out at me as "too much." OK
  • I removed at least one other set that I found, and your edits look good. I think everything that's left is either alternate naming or conversions. Dana boomer (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you wikilink "Field packing"? That's a jargon-y term outside of horticulture. Perfect.--MTBW
  • I'm not convinced the term needs its own article, so I've instead reworded the sentence so it should be self-explanatory. Sasata (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Culinary use section: "Cabbage is used in many ways, ranging from eating raw and simple steaming to pickling,... is a little awkward, can you smooth out the prose a bit? Also wikilink salt beef? Also awkwardly phrased is: "... It is one of the main food crops, and sauerkraut is a frequent dish, as well as being used to stuff other dishes..." FIXED
  • These spots of rough prose have been smoothed. Salt beef w'linked. Sasata (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the bit on consumption statistics should start the beginning of the section instead of being buried after the recipes... FIXED
  • Might want to rename "Cited Literature" to "Cited Works" or "Works Cited." Unless, of course, this is the common layout for a plant article.

That's all I see. Nothing not fixable. Montanabw(talk) 06:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good work so far, will check in again when you've had a chance to look at the other reviewer's comments too. Montanabw(talk) 22:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Follow up I'm happy, will now SUPPORT, and added in boldface at the beginning of my comments Montanabw(talk) 03:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I do not agree with Indopug as Chinese cabbage is a different species and the article article already explains about them being lumped together for reporting. I think this is an excellent article. HalfGig (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review & support! Sasata (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Quadell[edit]

I'm excited to see this as a FAC. It can be a bit depressing to see the current state of articles on important food plants like Scallion or Coriander. This article is miles ahead of those, which is gratifying; still, there are a number of issues that will need to be resolved before I can support it for FA status. Some should be rather easy to handle, but others will require more work. – Quadell (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image check: All the images are either in the public domain or are released under a free license, and all required information is present. All images are relevant and used appropriately.
  • Spotchecks: References 5, 8, 18, 28, 41, 51, and 61 all fully support the statement they source without any plagiarism.
  • When reading the "Medicinal lore" section, the reader naturally wonders if any scientific evidence backs up any of these remedies (especially those in the final paragraph). Have any studies been done? (Of possible interest: this, this, this, and especially this.)
  • The second and fourth sources you give aren't really appropriate as they are primary studies and not compatible with WP:MEDRS for medical claims, but the first is a good recent review, and I've added a summary sentence here. The other is a review, but older; will read soon and see what I can add. Sasata (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the difficulty when discussing natural remedies: it's always easier to find a RS saying "X has been used to treat Y" than one saying "X has been shown effective/ineffective at treating Y". In the end, we're limited to the sources we have. Still, it's worth finding everything we can. – Quadell (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • After considerable deliberation, I've decided not to cite the 1983 review article. WP:MEDDATE advises us to stick to sources that are less than 5 (preferably 3) years old. Much of the paper is devoted to summarizing anticarcinogenic effects demonstrated in primary studies on cell cultures and animal models. Summarizing, they suggest that results are interesting and need further investigation, but they don't make any definitive conclusions about benefits to human health. Much water has flowed under the bridge since then, and I've inserted a 2009 review which essentially concludes the same thing! Also, much of the relevant research involves cruciferous vegetables in general, rather than cabbage specifically, so I get the feeling that a more extensive summary of this research would be more appropriate at a higher level article (perhaps Cruciferous vegetables). That being said, if you think I've missed an important point that should go in the article, I'd (we'd) be happy to consider including it. Sasata (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. It's important that we have as much of a solid, reliable summary of the state of knowledge as possible. As more research is done, it will be important to keep this updated. Thanks for carefully inspecting it and the available sources, to make sure nothing major is missing. (By the way, I reparagraphed that section where the break felt more natural to me.) – Quadell (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved items

(I have left the image check and spotchecks outside this collapsible box, for the benefit of other reviewers.)

  • (Spotcheck exception): But reference 52 is a dead link.
  • I've put in an archived url to cover this. Sasata (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a reader, I'm curious whether the first two paragraphs of "Description" refer to all varieties of Brassica oleracea (kale, broccoli, etc.), or just cabbage. If the former, it would be useful to include something like "Like all [or most] B. oleracea varieties," so the reader knows what is specifically a description of the cabbage plant.
  • The description section was derived from sources describing the cabbage specifically. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what general features are shared with other B. oleracea varieties, although I image that some, e.g. the structure of the flowers, is the same or similar. I think this sort of comparative information would be best situated at the Brassica oleracea article. Sasata (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that will be an opportunity for improvement once the other B. oleracea articles improve. But it's not an impediment to FA status. – Quadell (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the article omits the serial comma, though the penultimate sentence in the lead uses one. Also, the sentence in "Cultivation problems" beginning "Rhizoctonia solani causes..." uses a serial comma. You should either always use them or always omit them.
  • Removed these two and will look for more. Sasata (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "history" section seems a little slim. At least one of the sources you use (Aggie Horticulture) gives more extensive information about the history of cabbage, as does this 1827 book (pp. 91-101). Is there valuable material in these sources (or others in your possession) that could give more extensive, relevant information about the history of cabbage?
  • I've extracted some tidbits from these sources (and others), and added them to the article. I don't think there's a lot more to be said; one authoritative, scholarly source I've used (Dixon, 2007), has an extensive chapter titled "Origins and diversity of Brassica and its relatives", but there's little about headed cabbage that's not already in the article. Sasata (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I just wanted to make sure it's reasonably complete. – Quadell (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the lead says "...although Chinese cabbage is the most popular form of the vegetable in that country", that could be misleading, since b. rapa is not a form of b. oleracea. It's not inaccurate, since you did state that we were discussing all brassicas, but it would still be helpful to say "the most popular brassica vegetable" instead.
  • Good point, fixed as suggested. Sasata (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't clear what "earlier varieties" means in the first paragraph of "Description". (The terms "early" and "late varieties" are used again in the "Cultivation" section, and there one can determine from context what is meant. Still, it would be better to explain the difference in "Description".)
  • I reworded this to the more self-explanatory "fast-growing, earlier-maturing varieties", leaving the more precise definitions to the cultivation section (where I think it belongs). Sasata (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the caption "Inflorescence" could be improved. (It's a single word that most readers won't know.)
  • I think "The transitional from a juvenile to adult state" should instead be "The transition from a juvenile to adult state".
  • The opening "Bacterial diseases include black rot," indicates that a list is coming, but of course discussion of black rot is more than enough to fill a good sentence. Personally I would reword it as "One of the most common bacterial diseases to affect cabbage is black rot,".
  • In that same paragraph, a sentence begins "A parasitic disease downy mildew, caused by the oomycete Peronospora parasitica, produces..." This feels wrong to me. You could just switch the "A" to "The", and that would work, but I think it would scan better as "Downy mildew, a parasitic disease caused by the oomycete Peronospora parasitica, produces..."
  • When you say "often confused with the fungal powdery mildew", I think you mean "often confused with the fungal disease powdery mildew."
  • A comma is needed after "which produced 46 percent of the world total".
  • "sauerkraut is a frequent dish, as well as being used to stuff" is an awkward phrasing. How about this? "sauerkraut is a frequent dish, either eaten on its own or used to stuff"
  • The "Medicinal lore" section uses an unspaced en dash, where WP:MOSDASH recommends either a spaced en dash or an unspaced em dash.
  • Allotting four good-sized sentences in "Taxonomy and etymology" to various (minor) slang uses for the word "cabbage" constitutes a ballance issue. It's not directly related to the taxonomy or etymology of "cabbage".
  • Trimmed two sentences about slang use. Sasata (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider the sentence: "Cabbage is used in many ways, ranging from eating raw and simple steaming to pickling, stewing, sauteing or braising." I think this should be reworded. One natural phrasing would be: "Cabbage is prepared and consumed in many ways. The simplest options include eating the vegetable raw or steaming it, though many cuisines pickle, stew, saute or braise cabbage." (I'm not insisting on this wording, of course, but I think the sentence does need to be improved.)
  • Sounds good to me, reworded as suggested. Sasata (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This paragraph says that cabbage is "used" six times, with an additional reference to its "use". It's an odd verb to use here, and at least in some cases it could be replaced (e.g. "In India and Ethiopia, cabbage is often included in spicy salads and braises.") And I'm not sure what "fresh market use" is in the U.S.
  • Replaced all instances of "fresh market" with "market", and reduced by half the occurrence of use/used in that section. Sasata (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two sentences of "Taxonomy and etymology" mention other species referred to as "cabbage" in some form. It seems to me that this would be a natural place to discuss "Chinese cabbage". (It's certainly more notable than cabbage bark or cabbage palm, and discussing the difference here may address indopug's concerns above.)
Good stuff. – Quadell (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says "Plants are generally started in protected locations early in the growing season before being transplanted outside", sourced to an article on gardening, and I'm sure that's true for cabbages grown in backyard gardens. But most cabbage is grown in massive farms, like the one pictured. Are those generally started in protected locations and transplanted? If not, it isn't correct to say this is "generally" what happens.
  • From what I can find, transplanting is also frequently used on the large farms. One source (paraphrasing here), says that while direct seeding is sometimes cheaper, transplanting gives a more uniform field appearance (no spots that didn't germinate) and maturity (can transplant everything that germinated within a small window, rather than having field-germinated plants ranging over a wider window). Dana boomer (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine then. – Quadell (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the list of countries in "Production", I think it would be an improvement to link to Agriculture in China, Agriculture in Poland, etc., rather than the country name. (After all, WP:OVERLINK advises against linking to major geographic locations in most cases, and I think the individual agriculture articles are more relevant.)
  • I've added a few links to these in the text (thanks–didn't know these article existed!), but am not sure how to do it with the flag templates in the table ... Dana? Sasata (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hadn't seen that you were using flag templates. Those are complicated templates to unpack and alter. You could omit the flags and just say '''[[Agriculture in Poland|Poland]]''', which would be simplest, or you could each flag image manually... – Quadell (talk) 12:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I've switched to non-linking flag templates and linked these countries to their respective agriculture articles. Looks like we need articles on agriculture in Korea and the Ukraine; the absence of the latter is surprising, considering its "powerhouse" stature (according to our article on the country). Sasata (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(That looks like a great DYK opportunity for someone.) Great, I think that's an improvement. – Quadell (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you say Russians consume "20 kilograms (44 lb) [of cabbage] per capita", I assume that's annually, but the article doesn't say.
  • Yes, annually. I've amended this in the article. Dana boomer (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Works cited" section does not contain all the works that are cited. Many works cited are listed instead in the "References" section. I know, a lot of people like to have books directly in "References" unless they are cited more than once, because it's easier, but it doesn't look as consistent or professional (in my view) to have some books listed inline and others at the end. Shouldn't a "Works cited" section contain all the cited works?
    • Comment' from another reviewer:I've often seen only books in a cited works section, as the need is to cite to individual page numbers, while the web sources can be simpler refs. In fact, you may want to look at one of my recent FAs, William Robinson Brown, where that is exactly what we did. --Montanabw
      • I agree that it would be great to include all books in the "cited works" (perhaps renamed "bibliography"), with web sources and journal entries directly in the refs. But the trouble is, there are many books in the refs. – Quadell (talk) 12:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Books used more than once are listed in the Works cited section, which is a pretty common way of doing things. It strikes a good balance between not cluttering the References with a bunch of duplicated information and not cluttering the Works cited section with a bunch of random books that are only used to cite one particular minor thing. Dana boomer (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, it's not a requirement. – Quadell (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wien and Wurr book has page numbers listed in the "Works cited", with more specific pages listed in the references. But other books (many of which only mention cabbage in a small section) do not have pages listed in the "Works cited" section. I think it would be best to be consistent here.
  • Similarly, are most cabbages (the ones grown on huge farms) "harvested by cutting the stalk just below the bottom leaves with a knife"? The "Production" section indicates that mechanical harvesting is common.
  • Would "with a blade" work better? Mechanical harvesters also cut... Dana boomer (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an elegant solution. – Quadell (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sasata (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This is a thorough, complete, and well-written article. It deserves featured status. – Quadell (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(End of Quadell's review)

Source review - adding on to what's noted by Quadell above

  • Now linked to archived url. Sasata (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (singing "H, I, J, K...") Check alphabetization of Works cited
  • Be consistent in how volume numbers are treated for book sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was quite surprised that the article doesn't mention, even in passing, the Triangle of U. It's certainly not something that needs to be covered in depth, as there's a separate article on the Triangle, of course, but if it were up to me I'd probably mention it. RomanSpa (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added "According to the triangle of U theory of the evolution and relationships between Brassica species, cabbage and other closely related kale vegetables (kale, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, and cauliflower) represent one of three ancestral lines from which all other brassicas originated." Thanks for your comment. Sasata (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some issues about the correct use of the ICN and the ICNCP. As with many vegetable crops, the sources often don't use these codes correctly, so it's not easy to do so here, but in WP:PLANTS we have usually tried to follow the codes if possible.

  • In the cultivar box, there is text like "White cabbage (capitata var. alba L.)". It's wrong to write an epithet without a preceding genus name; you might think this is supposed to be B. capitata var. alba, but capitata seems to be a varietal epithet, so this doesn't make sense. It needs sorting.
  • You are correct in that the sources we used do not present this information consistently. I am unknowledgeable about the conventions of the ICNCP, and would appreciate any assistance in getting this correct, and our articles on these cultivars are inconsistent. Using Dixon (2007) as a source, I've changed to the following:
White cabbage (B. oleracea L. var. capitata L. f. alba DC.)
Red cabbage (B. oleracea L. var. capitata L. f. rubra (L.) Thell)
Savoy cabbage (B. oleracea L. var. sabauda L.)
But I don't know if there have been recent changes in the rules that renders these names obsolete. Advice? Sasata (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a complex subject. The tendency now is to use the ICNCP, i.e. cultivar Groups and cultivars, to name cultivated varieties that in the past were given Latin names according to the IC(B)N. However, as I noted above, because reliable sources don't (yet) use the ICNCP correctly for many vegetables (ornamental plants are generally much better), it's hard to do so in Wikipedia. I'm therefore happy with the way you've fixed it. (Just for the record, strictly speaking when giving the name of a plant rather than its classification the ICN says that only one infraspecific epithet should be used, i.e. the name of the plant classified as B. oleracea var. capitata f. alba is B. oleracea f. alba – the varietal epithet has to be unique within the species. But in the cultivar box the classification is fine in my view.)
  • "Variety" is a tricky word in the context of a plant article. In something like "Many shapes, colors and leaf textures are found in various cabbage varieties", what seems to be meant is "cultivars". If this word is too technical, then write "... in various cultivated varieties of cabbage". When there are Latin var. epithets mentioned in the article, just saying "varieties" isn't clear enough, in my view.
  • I've changed this occurrence and a few others. Sasata (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Cultivars section says that there are several cultivars of cabbage, each including many varieties. This can't be correct. The ICNCP defines a cultivar as being "distinct, uniform and stable" in its characters, so there shouldn't be "varieties" within a cultivar. Perhaps "cultivar Group" and then "cultivar" is meant.

Peter coxhead (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medical ref issue Apologies for not being clear as to what I think is the problem with this bit: "It [cabbage] is a cruciferous vegetable, and has been shown to reduce the risk of some cancers, especially those in the colorectal group." + the Verkerk et al. (2009) reference. Section 5 of this paper (S240ff.) does review cruciferous vegetables in general, but not specifically cabbage. The only individual vegetable mentioned in Table 3 is broccoli and in Table 4 cabbage is not included. So I don't accept that the reference supports precisely what is written. What the paper shows for humans is that consumption of cruciferous vegetables in general has been shown to correlate with reduced risk of some cancers, especially those in the colorectal group, although not specifically the consumption of cabbage, which was not included in the intervention studies. Look at the conclusion in 5.6 (S247). This is considerably more nuanced that the article: "have the potential to reduce colon cancer risk" and "A question still arises over the concentration of ITCs required to exhibit their anticarcinogenic effects without themselves becoming genotoxic." Peter coxhead (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank-you for more specifically delineating your concern. I have swapped for another review article that specifically mentions cabbage in this context, and deliberately weakened the claim made in the article text in this edit. Does this seem satisfactory? Sasata (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems fine to me now. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the later sections of the article:

  • "Pickling is one of the most popular ways of preserving cabbage, creating dishes such as sauerkraut and kimchee,[16] although kimchee is more often made from Chinese cabbage (B. rapa)." Is this meant to imply that Chinese cabbage is not actually cabbage? If not, I don't understand why a contrast is being set up with "although".
  • "Cabbage consumption varies widely around the world..." Two problems with this sentence: First, it's not clear if "Russians" means "people in Russia" or "people who consider themselves to be Russian". Second, the phrasing seems to imply that America is in Europe...? Also, mostly out of curiosity, where is China? There's like a trillion people there munching on kimchee, don't they at least beat out the Spaniards?
In response to these two points, there's a classic problem here resulting from the article being at the English name, "cabbage", rather than the scientific name, "Brassica oleracea". Not all the vegetables whose English names include "cabbage" are B. oleracea. In particular, "Chinese cabbage" is B. rapa, a different species. So, yes, as it explains in the somewhat oddly named Taxonomy and etymology section, Chinese cabbage is not actually cabbage. However, this does point out another problem, which is that there aren't any statistics for "true" cabbage production; the table in Cabbage#Production is for a variety of Brassica cultivars. So it's not clear to me what evidence there is for "true" cabbage consumption around the world. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Outside comment) I'm not sure reliable statistics exist for cabbage consumption specifically. The lead describes "world production of cabbage and other brassicas" lumped together, and the "Production" section similarly lumps all brassicas together. It's relevant information, but it's not as useful as cabbage-specific statistics would be. Still, the article can't claim what the sources don't say... – Quadell (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworded this sentence like so to hopefully clarify the potentially ambiguous wording. Sasata (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scientific evidence suggests that..." This phrasing seems a bit unusual. Why not "studies suggest"?
  • "This is possibly due to the glucosinolates found in cole crops, which serve as metabolic detoxicants" The what and the huh? No wikilinks in this very jargon-heavy sentence.
  • In an attempt to clarify, I've rewritten this to say "This is possibly due to the glucosinolates found in cole crops, which stimulate the production of detoxifying enzymes that remove carcinogens created during metabolism". Glucosinolate has already been linked in the final paragraph of the previous section. Sasata (talk) 07:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which in other vegetables have been proven to have anti-carcinogenic properties." I highly doubt that any nutritionist would ever claim to have "proven" something. I suggest swapping this out for "shown".
  • Regarding the Food-borne illness suggestion: Do countries other than the US exist?
  • I have looked around for other cases of food-borne illness traced directly to cabbage, but it seems that the US cases are the only ones reported in the literature. Will keep searching ... Sasata (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been looking for the past couple of days but have not turned up any non-US cases that are specific to cabbage. Sasata (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he suggested that women could prevent diseases in their private parts" Surely there are more encyclopedic phrases that could be used than "private parts", no? We aren't writing a children's book here.
  • Can you suggest an alternative? Our article on the subject is called intimate parts, but that phrase seemed a bit dorky to me. Sasata (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was hoping that the source would be a bit more unambiguous about it, but the author also uses the silly phrase "private parts", which could conceivably refer to the vagina, anus, breasts, or any combination thereof. The other issue I've noticed: the article claims that the cabbage urine will prevent diseases of the private parts, whereas the source is somewhat ambiguous as to whether the cabbage urine will prevent all diseases or just private part diseases. With these two things in mind, I believe the best solution is simply to delete the words "in their private parts" from the article, unless a second source can be found which clarifies the matter. Thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point you make—my rewording of the source has introduced a meaning not intended by the original. I agree that removing "in their private parts" eliminates this unintended meaning ... now trimmed. Sasata (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While reading through Wright 2001, I noticed that it mentions cabbage being used as a laxative. Is there any reason this shouldn't be mentioned in Medicinal lore?
  • Well, the section is intended as a selection (rather than a complete compilation) of the weird and wacky traditional uses for cabbage, but I agree that this one is good to add (especially since modern thought suggests that perhaps it really does have laxative effects) ... added. Sasata (talk) 07:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the Medicinal lore section can and should do a better job of clarifying which uses have been debunked. The one about bathing in urine seems a bit preposterous at first glance, but the alcohol counter seems fairly plausible. It should not be the reader's job to guess.
  • To my knowledge, the only health benefit in this section that has been scientifically demonstrated is its use in relieving the pain of swollen breasts and in prolonging breast feeding duration, which is already indicated explicitly in the text; all others are "folk remedies", to be taken with a pinch (or greater amount) of salt. I've amended the first sentence of the paragraph to read "... cabbage has been used historically as a medicinal herb for a variety of supposed health benefits.", but would welcome any further tweaks to the prose that would help convey the skepticism with which the section should be read. Sasata (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section ordering The usual section ordering for a plant article (e.g. as per the WP:PLANTS template) is to start with "Description" and move on to "Taxonomy" later. For cultivated plants, there does need to be a separate section, early in the article, "History", covering introduction and domestication (which can often include the common names). Looking at articles on different crop species, there seems to be little if any agreement on the ordering of these three sections, although most have them somewhere. I do think it is more useful for the ordinary reader to start with "Description" before moving on to more arcane issues of "Taxonomy and etymology", so I would suggest reversing the order of these two sections. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current arrangement is fine, and is similar to the layout on the featured article for the cultivated species lettuce. The plants template itself prominently advises that "this template is only a suggestion". Personally, I think the description section is more arcane than the information presented in the taxonomy section, but YMMV. I have no issues with changing the order of these two sections if consensus decides otherwise. Sasata (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2013 (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, 15 October 2013 (UTC) [20].[reply]

John Sherman[edit]

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, after a total rewrite and a peer review, I believe it meets the standards. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I may have a few more, though the article is quite good, but I've got one issue: again as at PR, it's the Bland-Allison Act. The way you phrase it, you seem to say that the Act did authorize the free coinage of silver, but up to a limit. That is not the case. There was no free coinage of silver. The government simply purchased silver bullion on the open market, and struck it into silver dollars. The producer did not receive a premium for the bullion, as he would under a system of free coinage of silver with silver valued at less than $1.2929 per ounce. The nub of the matter is who gets the seignorage, that is the difference between the one-dollar coin and the value of the metal contained within it. Under free coinage, it's the producer, or whoever deposits the bullion at the mint or assay office. Under the Bland-Allison Act, it's the government.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd fixed that at the PR but, yes, the phrase "free coinage" seems to still be there. I took it out, but I'm not sure we're on the same page yet. The problem is that many historians and primary sources describe Bland's plan as free coinage, as the Sherman quote in that section does. Maybe it's a goldbug's way of denigrating it, or equating a moderate proposal with a more radical one, but it makes for difficulty in describing it accurately. --Coemgenus (talk)
Bland was certainly a free silver advocate, after all, he was a leading Democratic contender in 1896, so "Silver Dick" had to be. However, his bill did not pass the Senate without the amendment by Senator Allison which took out the free coinage of silver.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're in agreement. Does the Bland-Allison section look right now? --Coemgenus (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still got quibbles. First, and more minor, under Bland's proposal, the government wouldn't "buy" the metal from miners, really. What was going on was that the depositors were getting back the bullion they put in (by then not the identical metal) now in coin form. Second, your description of Allison's amendment. It did more than just limit the amount. It changed it from a free-silver bill, one where depositors put in as much silver as they wanted and got it back as silver dollars (more likely as silver certificates, easier to carry). Allison's amendment eliminated the free-silver provision, but as a sop to the miners, required the government to buy on the open market from domestic producers a very large amount of bullion and strike it into silver dollars and issue silver certificate on that backing. So the miners didn't get the high profit from getting ninety cents in silver struck into a dollar coin, but they'd get a lot of silver used up, thus raising the price by supply/demand principles. Want me to take a shot at editing it directly? This is all fairly weird economics by today's standards.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please, feel free to edit it yourself. It's complicated stuff, and I want to be sure it's right. --Coemgenus (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I played with it. How's that?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Accurate and concise. Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prose and comprehensiveness. Had my say at the PR, as may be apparent.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • All of the currency captions should not end in periods, nor should the Senate office
    • Done.
  • File:John_Sherman_age_19.png: page?
    • Done.
  • File:Demand_Legal_Comparison.jpg: tag parameter should indicate whether this is in circulation
    • Not sure what you want me to do here. The notes are not seen any more in circulation, but are legal tender. What should I write and where?
  • File:100_USD,_1890_series.jpg: source link is dead
    • Fixed.
  • File:President_Pro_Tempore_US_Senate_Seal.svg: should include a licensing tag for the design; same with File:Seal_of_the_United_States_Senate.svg. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought there was one here for Pres Pro Tem and here. I don't understand what's missing. I didn't add these templates, I don't know anything about them. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably works of the government. I'd check around, you may be able to find out a bit. If you use it, even in a template, they call you on it at FAC. It can be irritating :) --Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I always forget about the template crap at the bottom of the page. If we can't resolve it, I'd just as soon remove it. No sense letting it sink the whole article when it doesn't add that much. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These shood have the correct license now. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Quadell[edit]

This is an excellent article, and I am strongly leaning towards supporting. It is comprehensive and well-balanced, complete and organized appropriately. The writing is excellent. I have found a few minor issues I'd like to see resolved before supporting, however.

  • The lead is good, but it feels a bit short for an article of this size. Could it be lengthened a bit?
    • I had the opposite reaction when I finished writing: the lead is good, but the article's too long! I'll take a look, though, and see if I've left anything out. Is there anything in particular you think I ought to add?
      • Oh, something on his work in the House, Kansas, something more on his time as Secretary of the Treasury... he had a long and varied career. Many of his minor claims to fame would each make him notable enough for his own article, if they were the only things he ever did. So you have a lot to choose from. – Quadell (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I expanded it along those lines.
          • I have one new issue with the new material in the lead, which I'll describe below. – Quadell (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The grammar is excellent throughout, leaving me very little to nitpick. Still, I found a few peccadilloes. A comma is needed after "Sherman moved north to Cleveland, Ohio". (See bullet 2 at MOS:COMMA.) One is also needed after "Representative Winfield S. Kerr of Mansfield, Ohio".
    • Done.
  • For a very similar reason, a comma is needed after "was born in Lancaster, Ohio, May 10, 1823" and "Cleveland signed it into law on February 4, 1887".
    • These already have them, don't they?
      • No, the year is a parenthetic and needs commas both before and after. It can look odd if you're not used to it, but this is "The September 26, 2013, review" and not "The September 26, 2013 review".
        • Got it. Fixed.
  • Similarly, one is needed after "the April 9, 1870" in the first cartoon caption. In addition, that caption either needs the period removed (as it's not a complete sentence), or it needs the word "which" removed (my preference).
    • Removed "which".
      • Still needs the comma after the year. – Quadell (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Got it.
  • The caption that begins "An 1889 cartoon" either needs the period omitted, or needs "suggests" instead of "suggesting" (my preference).
    • Fixed.
  • Most style guides agree that comma is needed to join two independent clauses with a coordinating conjunction. So a comma is needed after "adjourned" in the second sentence of "House leadership". (See how hard I have to work to find a grammar issue?)
    • Fixed.
  • The wording "made him overmatched in the job" in the lead feels awkward.
    • I wrote most of the lead in one "take" and that just came to mind as I wrote it. I kind of like the phrase, but I've been accused of using Victorian language in the past. What do you think would be better? The point was that Sherman was past his prime and growing forgetful, if not senile, by the time he served as Sec. of State. I substituted a new phrase.
      • Eloquent and sympathetic. – Quadell (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I question whether "The first Sherman in the New World, Samuel Sherman, emigrated in 1634" is relevant information. His relation is not specified, and the fact feel abrupt and intrusive.
    • I removed it. Old-time biographers loved to trace a man's ancestors, especially patrilinially. I think it's interesting, but it's not terribly relevant.
  • I'm not sure who you mean when you say "Sherman's cousin intended", since they're all Sherman. Do you mean "Sherman's father's cousin (also named John Sherman)" here? Or someone else?
    • That's who I meant. I think I clarified it, but it may just be more convoluted now.
      • I think it's fine now. As my grandmother often says, when past generations chose names for their children, they were selfishly not thinking at all about the hassles they would cause future genealogists. :) – Quadell (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may just be my preference, but it feels incorrect to me to use parentheses in this way: "Complete sentence (complete sentence)." The parenthetical complete sentence bugs me when it does not begin with a capital letter. So I think "...coins of that metal would disappear from circulation (this phenomenon is known as Gresham's law)" would be better as "...coins of that metal would disappear from circulation (in a phenomenon is known as Gresham's law)" or "coins of that metal would disappear from circulation. (This phenomenon is known as Gresham's law.)" Similarly, "...what was then called the Opposition Party (it would become the Republican Party.)" would be better as "...what was then called the Opposition Party (later to become the Republican Party)" or "...what was then called the Opposition Party. (It would become the Republican Party.)" There is one more: "...number of votes on the first ballot (no candidate received a majority)".
    • I changed those three. It reads fine to me either way, so I'm happy to oblige.
      • Thanks. I made the "L" lower-case here because it was bugging me; I hope that's fine. – Quadell (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as we're discussing trivial opportunities for improvement, the use of the word "quickly" in both of the first two sentences of "Secretary of State" feels a little awkward.
    • Good catch. Changed.
  • Note [a] starts with "In those days...", which feels a tad folksy and unencyclopedic. (Besides that, the notes are excellent.)
    • Fixed? Changed "in those days" to "at that time."
      • Thanks. I can't put my finger on why that feels more professional, but it does (to me). – Quadell (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Notes, References, Sources, and External links sections are paragons of the way these sections should be formatted and structured. It's really a thing of beauty. But don't capitalize "By" in " By Thomas Townsend Sherman".
    • Thanks. That stuff is actually important to me, and I try to make that part of an article look its best. As to the T.T. Sherman book, I actually had intended to delete that. It's scarcely relevant. Done!
  • Late addition: The lead now says "As a member of the House, Sherman traveled to investigate the turmoil there", and it isn't clear what you mean by "there", or what turmoil you mean. The phrase "the turmoil there" links to Bleeding Kansas, but it's not immediately obvious whether he traveled to Kansas to investigate the turmoil in Kansas, or traveled to the House to investigate the turmoil in the House, or what. I'm not going to delay supporting this excellent article, but I think it would be an improvement to make this sentence clearer.

That's all I could find to criticize, which is remarkable in an article of this size. I look forward to your responses. – Quadell (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the through review. I'm glad you enjoyed the article! --Coemgenus (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All that's left is expanding the lead a tad, plus a few minor comma issues. – Quadell (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. By any measure, this article is among the best Wikipedia has to offer. It's complete, thorough, balanced, well-written, will-illustrated, and impeccably sourced. – Quadell (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most Senate Finance Committee members had no objection, and Sherman found himself "alone in opposition to it," - any reason why this last segment is in quotes (which I find a little jarring to read) and not "Most Senate Finance Committee members had no objection, and Sherman found himself alone in opposing it," ?
NB: next two quotes in section are ok as they are more emphatic and specific.
financial conditions in the country improved as they already had been --> " financial conditions in the country continued to improve" ? (funny wording)
Both good suggestions. I've made the changes as you suggested. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three supports and an image review, I think we're good to go, aren't we? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: All sources look of appropriate quality and reliability. A few minor issues:

  • Refs 9, 182 and 203 require "pp." rather than "p."
  • The two legal refs, 195 and 196, should be fully formatted as web citations. In particular the "See..." prefix is non-standard
  • For the older, pre-ISBN books it's worth showing the OCLC numbers, which can be obtained from the Worldcat site. To save you time this once, I've looked them up:
  • Burton 2693291
  • Kerr 823261
  • Muzzey 656771
  • Nevins 1373564
  • Sherman J. 5438111

No spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the check and especially for looking up the OCLC numbers. I've added them and corrected the p/pp issues. I moved the U.S. Code cites to the Notes section, and removed the "See". I think they belong there, but I'd be happy to move them back. Is there anything else I should do with those two cites? --Coemgenus (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2013 (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 10:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC) [21].[reply]

U.S. Route 23 in Michigan[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 02:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing in my series of work on the longest highways in the state of Michigan, I present #2 in the top 10. (I-75 which just passed is #1.) US 23 has origins in predecessor highways from the 1910s, and it is a major highway in the Lower Peninsula that was converted to freeways along its southern half in the 1950s. It's northern half is an especially scenic drive along the Lake Huron shoreline. The subject is worthy of consideration, and I believe the article meets the criteria for promotion. Imzadi 1979 → 02:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I reviewed this article at GAN and ACR and feel it meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 02:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I supported at the ACR, but there were some changes to the article since April 2012. I anticipate supporting once this is fixed:
    • this extension was not approved by Congress on December 13, 1968. - a bit ambiguous
  • I still have the same reservations that I did with my support on the ACR, but I don't believe that they are concerning enough to withhold support. --Rschen7754 07:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I updated that Congress approved a different allotment of Interstate mileage to Michigan. Otherwise, I can't see what's ambiguous about that passage. Imzadi 1979 → 14:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support meets the criteria. Issue was resolved. --Rschen7754 22:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image check - all OK (CC, Flickr, PD-US-no notice). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't get the chance to review this at ACR, as this passed before I became active, so I'll leave a few comments:
    1. The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead incorrectly states that the Indian trails were along US 23. US 23 didn't exist yet, so that should be reworded.
    2. "The highway has been a part of the Lake Huron Circle Tour since that program's creation in 1986." – What program? It's not mentioned by name, and "Lake Huron Circle Tour" isn't the name of the whole program, is it?
More to come later, I've only read through the route description thus far. TCN7JM 12:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I got those items fixed. Just let me know when you're through another section or two. Imzadi 1979 → 23:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, reading through to the end of the article, I have just one inquiry on whether or not it was intentional that Bay City is linked at its second usage in the history instead of its first. TCN7JM 14:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was probably just an editing artifact from some revision along the way, and it's fixed now too. Imzadi 1979 → 22:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that being done, I feel this meets all FA criteria, so I can support this article's promotion to FA status. TCN7JM 22:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Compare FNs 4 and 5 - why include Google twice but MDOT only once?
  • Compare FNs 10 and 55
  • Why are Toledo Blade and The Blade being treated as different publications?
    • The answer to the above is that both papers changed their names several decades ago to strip out the city name from the publication name. It would be anachronistic to refer to a publication by a name it didn't use at the time of the publication. The names used are the names as listed in the masthead of the issues cited. Imzadi 1979 → 03:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare FNs 79 and 81 - why the different treatment of "editorial"?
  • Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2013 (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 10:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC) [22].[reply]

L'Arianna[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did most of the work on this article, about an early Monteverdi opera, nearly two years ago. I originally meant it to be about the "Ariadne's Lament" – the only surviving music – but decided to expand, add context and tell the story of the opera, which is historically important and deserves its own article, I think. It has had a couple of talkpage reviews, mainly from users Dictioneer and Tim riley, with others adding comments on specific aspects. I have polished it up and prepared it for ths FAC, but no doubt I've not caught everything. All comments welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Another nice article from you, which I anticipate supporting. Consider the following Comments resolved and struck:

  • Lede: "severe pressure of time" is a little awkward; "severe time pressure"?.
    • Don't agree: I think the existing wording is more natural. Tim riley (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I think "pressure of time" is the more usual BritEng idiom. Brianboulton (talk)
        • Well, I'm British too, so I think it's more local than that. But OK. --Stfg (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede: "the composer would later say"; he did say it :) so just "the composer later said".
    • Touché! I regularly castigate the "would" format in my reviews. It is occasionally justifiable, but not in this case. Brianboulton (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historical context: "Il ballo delle ingrate ("Dance of the Ungrateful Ladies")" -- is this the standard translation in the literature? If so, please ignore this comment; otherwise, lacking some word like donne, "Women" would be better.
    • Of the various sources, Ringer uses "Ladies"; none of the others give a translation. I will footnote this if you think it significant. Brianboulton (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No need for a footnote, thanks. I was just checking. --Stfg (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historical context: "the former of these"; just "the former", which already implies "these".
  • Historical context: "The duke decreed that the wedding opera would be based on the myth of Arianna (Ariadne), for which Rinuccini would write the text." Suggest changing would to should, and avoid implying that Rinuccini wrote the text for the original myth. So: "The duke decreed that the wedding opera should be based on the myth of Arianna (Ariadne), and that Rinuccini should write the text."
  • Libretto, 1st sentence: "born in Florence in 1562" has no bearing on what the sentence says otherwise, and it clutters it. We don't really need this information about Rinuccini in this article, do we?
    • Since there is a linked article on Rinuccini, I suppose we don't. Removed. Brianboulton (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Composition: "It is likely that Monteverdi began ..." is a bit verbose. "Monteverdi probably began ..." ?
  • Roles: "a matter of uncertainty" is a bit verbose; just "uncertain"?
  • Revival: Venice, 1639–40: "... the duke did not, as he had with L'Orfeo the previous year, request a second showing" seems a bit awkward. How about "... the duke did not request a second showing, as he had with L'Orfeo the previous year" ?

--Stfg (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Except for the first I agree with Stfg's suggestions.Tim riley (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editions: inconsistency as to whether there's a comma between the place name and the date. (I feel it's beter with the comma, but not strongly.) --Stfg (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm inclined to agree that commas give better presentation, and have made them standard. Thank you for the review and for some very helpful points. Brianboulton (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Welcome, and thanks again for a top-notch article. --Stfg (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support

BB has been polishing this piece on and off for some time, and I have had the pleasure of commenting now and again during the polishing. Though not a Monteverdi fan I have greatly enjoyed this article. It is comprehensive, thoroughly and widely referenced, and beautifully written. It almost makes me wish Monteverdi's score had not been lost. In my opinion this article meets all the FA criteria, and moreover is an example of why people turn to WP for information – nothing I can find freely available on the web comes anywhere near its quality, and even such subscription sites as Grove offer nothing half as thorough. This is an article of which both the nominator and Wikipedia as a whole should feel very proud. Tim riley (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, thank you for your steadfast help at several stages in this article's genesis, all the more noble knowing that Claudio is far from your preferred territory. Your words here, and your support, are much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Just a few quibbles.

Lede
  • I would split the final sentence of the second paragraph
  • " it had almost killed him" I think you can safely do without the "had" and it would be more effective.
Creation
  • "working span" suggest "career".
  • "Rinuccini moved easily between the main Medici court in Florence and that of Marie de' Medici in Paris." Hmm. The phrasing seems a bit oblique.
  • I'd say "unnecessary" rather than "oblique"; I've removed it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the sources have any interesting speculation as to the circumstances of the pressure that Monteverdi was under?
  • I think the presssure was from the overall workload – composing three important works against the clock, while in post as the duke's maestro della musica. His wife had died the previous year, which can't have helped, as he had two youngish children. I don't want to clog up the main text with circumstantial detail, but I will frame an appropriate footnote. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had never thought of Virginia as an Italian name.
  • I imagine it derives from the Italian word "vergine" as in "Beata Vergine". It was indubitably her name. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, direct from Latin, not through vergine, and even the relation to virginity is not completely beyond doubt. Quite a surprise, that, but see Etymology Online. --Stfg (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Performance history
  • Wouldn't it be simpler to put the Croatian matter in chronological order, first mention the possible Dubrovnik performance and then the translation?
  • "The popularity of this and succeeding works" I think I would change "succeeding" to "other".
  • The final two sentences, on the great success of the revival, and its replacement "within a few weeks" seems an odd juxtaposition.
  • That's the way theatrical works were in those days. "Great success" did not, unfortunately, mean "long run" – or even that the music would survive. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recordings
  • " in both its madrigal and its solo voice formats." I'm trying to match these against the versions described in the previous section and not having a great deal of success. There were three? Plus some later variations? The phrasing here suggests that only two versions have survived.
Excellently done.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review all images except one were published or painted long ago and have their copyrights, if any, expired. One is modern. All have appropriate licenses, so everything seems in order.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for these comments which, except if I have noted otherwise, have been incorporated into the article. On the recording, I am checking, but I think only the 5-voice madrigal and the solo version, not the sacred hymn, were recorded. Thanks also for the images review, and for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can confirm no recordings of the sacred hymn appear to exist, but I hesitate to say this specifically in case one turns up. I have slightly altered the phrasing. Brianboulton (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • The final sentence of the second paragraph in the lede looks to be a bit long.
  • "She is said to have learned the part of Arianna in six days..." -- Do we know who said this?
  • Yes, we do. I have amended the text accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the first of the eight "editions" missing a closing period?

A wonderful job as usual. -- CassiantoTalk 08:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I looked through this a couple of weeks ago and made a couple of tiny changes. As usual, this is a very high quality article that ranks alongside Wikipedia's best. - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the small fixes and for your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Missing full bibliographic detail for Fenlon, Redlich, Rosand 1991
    • I must apologise for not updating the refs and sources sections before making this nom. The articl has changed several times, sources have been added (not always by me), others discarded. I have added full details for the others and removed the redundant ones (NB Rosand 1991 should be 2007 - the ref is from the later edition). Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated and if so, how
    • I have always understood that "New York" does not need a "N.Y." specified. As far as I know the "CT" and "N.J." abbreviations are correct. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed it. They represent two different types of state abbreviations and so are not consistent with each other. I've changed N.J. to NJ.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why include date for Carter short cites sometimes?
    • It's to avoid any possible confusion with the other (non-book) Carter citations Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No citations to Arnold & Fortune, Benward & Saker, either of the Rosand 2007s
  • None of the Grove links will open for me, although I have a subscription - is this a local or temporary problem, or are the URLs specific to a particular provider/account? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    All four Grove links opened for me using library barcode login in the UK. --Stfg (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can open the Grove links too. Tim riley (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC) (Duh! And will gladly check if wanted and Nikkimaria can't.) Tim riley (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources review. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ruhrfisch I made a few comments on this article on Brian's talk page and have re-read it. I find it fully meets the FA criteria, and agree that is a fine addition here. I have a few comments, which do not detract for my support.

  • perhaps tighten to "...("Dance of the Ungrateful Ladies"), with a text by Ottavio Rinuccini." in ...and a setting of the dramatic ballet Il ballo delle ingrate ("Dance of the Ungrateful Ladies"), the text for which was by Ottavio Rinuccini.
  • This might be AmEng vs BritEng, but I think that "between X and Y" OR "from X to Y" reads better for years, but not what is in the caption ...which Monteverdi served as a court musician between 1590 to 1612
  • It was supposed to be as you suggest - what I had made no sense at all. Now corrected. Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stray quotation mark between these sentences - is it from a broken quote? The duke decreed that the wedding opera should be based on the myth of Arianna (Ariadne), and that Rinuccini should write the text." Monteverdi was instructed to provide the music.[9]
  • Parallel construction - should it be "a prologue" in both places? The libretto published in Venice in 1622 takes the form of a prologue and eight scenes,[15] although other arrangements of the text have been suggested. For example, the musicologist Bojan Bujić has posited an alternative of prologue and five scenes.[16]
  • In the table in the Roles section, would it be possible to add the voice part (alto, etc.) for the roles whose casting is not known? Also why are two roles "not established" and one "not known"?
  • I have standardised to "not known". As to the voice types, in the absence of the music and without knowing who played these parts, we can't be certain about the voice types. However, since it is possible that Andreini, who was a soprano, doubled the part of Amore, that part was probably written for a soprano. Similarly, if (as has been mooted) the part of Venere was given to a possible substitute for the soprano Martinelli, that part, too. was presumably written for a soprano voice. I have added this to the table as reasonable speculation. As for the Nuntio, no information is available so no details can be added. Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultra-picky, but isn't the Minotaur usually referred to as being in a labyrinth (singular)? They are fleeing from Crete, where the pair have been complicit in the slaying of Ariadne's monster half-brother, the Minotaur, in the labyrinths below the palace of her father, King Minos.
  • Yes, since "labyrinth" is defined as "a maze of passages", the singular form is the more correct. Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would "for Ariadne" be clearer than "for her" in Cupid offers to rekindle Theseus's passion for her, but Venus has decided to unite her with the god Bacchus, and requests Cupid to arrange this.
  • Since opera is linked in the lead, should it also be linked in the very minimal Inf*b*x?
  • With the two words so close together, I don't think this is necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for these comments, the support and for help along the line. Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Gerda

Great article! Minor comments:

  • Lede
    • Immediate repetition of librettist's name
    • Might we also say something like "one of the earlist operas at all"? "influential" comes later
    • The place Mantua appears late.
    • I have slightly reorganised the lead to meet these points. Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historical context
    • I would prefer the pic right - it's my old training about image location ;)
    • I am confused about the date of the wedding, "planned for May", later termed "postponed to 28 May" - was it planned for earlier in May?
  • Lamento
    • "the "Prelude" and the "Liebestod"" - not only for this article: they are often performed together, shouldn't they be covered by one article or at least a redirect? In any case "Liebestod" would be better matched by "Vorspiel". (What would Wagner say if he saw the scene referred to as an aria as in the present article? Perhaps no link until it is improved)
    • As was pointed out during the review stages, the "Prelude and Liebstod" is a concert arrangement, not part of Wagner's opera. Let us not get bogged down in an issue which has little to do with this article beyond the fact that an analogy was made by a critic. Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that "sorrow, anger, fear, self-pity, desolation and a sense of futility" rang a bell with me ;) - Putting self-pity aside: I prefer the box on the talk, thinking that time, place and the renowned librettist deserve their place on something like the article's title page - instead of the present white space, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these comments. You will observe that the time, place and renowned librettist are all given in the article's opening paragraph, and I prefer to stick to the present arrangement, although your views on the matter are, as always, most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adjusting. I will talk about the sense of futility, but not here ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more: the composer looks "too old" for a work originally composed in Mantua, how is this this, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice pic, but the source needs to be explicit; at present the link is uninformative. This is not a FAC matter, and can be discussed further on the talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinators:: I'm a bit puzzled as to why this is still here. Seven supports (6 since 28 September), no opposes, no image or sources issues outstanding. There may be be good reasons for keeping it here, but I am going away in a few days' time, and would like to know if there's anything that needs doing. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2013 (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 10:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC) [23].[reply]

God of War: Ghost of Sparta[edit]

Nominator(s): JDC808 ♫ 15:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the last nomination had only one comment. Because of this, Ian Rose left a note on the last nomination saying I can renominate this. --JDC808 ♫ 15:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I believe that it is FA quality. I have some nit-picky comments for later, since I really lack the time to do them now. Also, re-read the entire article and check for some typos that I saw some days ago. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ21 19:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I only saw one typo (which was a grammatical one). --JDC808 ♫ 20:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It is well sourced and comprehensive. Excellent coverage of the video game. --Tærkast (Discuss) 18:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 20:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wikipedian Penguin[edit]

Comments—unfortunately, I'm a little concerned about the prose (1a). From the lead alone , I found:

  • "It was first released for the PlayStation Portable (PSP) handheld console on November 2, 2010. It is the sixth installment in the God of War series and the fourth chronologically. Loosely based on Greek mythology, it is set in Ancient Greece with vengeance as its central motif."—It...It...it...
  • "Journeying to the city of Atlantis, he finds his mother, Callisto, who claims his brother, Deimos, is still alive."—Why not just "In Atlantis..."? There are at least three unnecessary commas (reading aloud, you don't want this many pauses).
  • "Learning that Deimos has been imprisoned and tortured in the Domain of Death, Kratos attempts his rescue, climaxing in a confrontation with the God of Death, Thanatos, which ends in the deaths of both Deimos and Thanatos, with Kratos returning to Olympus, enraged at the gods."—long and convoluted.
  • "The gameplay is similar to the previous installments..."—missing a "that of".
  • In the second paragraph, there's just too much "The gameplay... The game... The player... The game...". It gets repetitive and boring. It doesn't hurt to use the title of the game itself "Ghost of Sparta" here and there a bit more.
  • "Additionally" is not a helpful transition.
  • "Claimed as 'a must-play for God of War fans,' the game received praise for its story, gameplay, and graphics."—claimed by whom?
  • "Claimed" is used again in the next sentence, twice at that. And the next sentence too, once. I also don't think we need to quote individual publications in the lead. Just summarize the consensus of the critics.
  • "By June 2012, the game had sold almost 1.2 million copies worldwide."—why not just "it"?

I won't oppose, but parts need to be read aloud and fixed, such as repetition. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I went through all points and tried to fix them. --JDC808 ♫ 17:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still need some work in the lede.

  • This is a back-to-front sentence: "Learning that Deimos has been imprisoned and tortured in the Domain of Death, Kratos attempts his rescue." How about "Kratos tries to rescue Deimos after he is imprisoned and tortured in the Domain of Death"? Get rid of the participle opening here.
  • "Climaxing in a confrontation with the God of Death, Thanatos, it ends with the deaths of both Deimos and Thanatos..."—what is "it" here?
  • "...with Kratos returning to Olympus, enraged at the gods."—fused participle.
  • "The combat system was also updated with 25 percent more gameplay than its PSP predecessor, God of War: Chains of Olympus."—"also" is useless.
  • Again, the lede should only be summarizing the critical response to the game. No need to quote various publications. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Took care of the first four points, and I believe I got the last one. --JDC808 ♫ 04:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see how Game Informer's and 1UP's opinions are so noteworthy that they should be in the lead. The Wikipedian Penguin 19:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see what the issue is when other game articles have done this with no problem, but I've removed them. --JDC808 ♫ 00:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have been addressed. The Wikipedian Penguin 09:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sp33dyphil[edit]

Comments This is a well-referenced and detailed article; however, I've got several minor issues that need to be addressed:

  • "box so that the player can use it as a jumping-off point to access a pathway unreachable with normal jumping"
  • "before dying, Callisto thanks him and beseeches him to seek out Deimos in Sparta. Before departing Prior to departure," Before...before...
  • "Enraged that Kratos has failed"
  • "on the PlayStation.Blog" Either "on the PlayStation Blog" or "on PlayStation.Blog".
  • "and took 23 months to develop complete." The sentence starts and ends with "develop".
  • FN 5 does not back up the claim that development started in September 2008.
  • "provided the respective voices of Kratos, Deimos, and Callisto, respectively." The two previous sentences already end with "respectively".
  • "was available for play at Sony's E3 2010 booth by to attendees "
  • "Approximately 15 minutes long, the The 15-minute sequence pits Kratos against a variety of foes on both sea and land various sea and land enemies, with the main opponent being the sea monster Scylla."
  • The abbreviation of PlayStation Portable is used throughout the article while that of the Playstation 3 isn't.
  • This is a non-essential request, but I would like alt text to be added to the two images. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 09:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I took care of all these. The "PS3" abbreviation is used in Marketing and Reception. --JDC808 ♫ 21:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I am happy with the article as it is. It is sufficiently detailed and well referenced. The non-free images have adequate rationales for their use. Regarding jps's comments, I don't believe GOW:GOS is as significant as for example, Halo and Crysis, to warrant such an emphasis regarding its place in the gaming culture and community. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :] --JDC808 ♫ 04:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by jps[edit]

Oppose It looks like this was a thoroughly-written article, but there is a major lack of context here. Let me explain: The fact of the existence of this game and where it fits in to other games produced by the game-makers is well-documented, but there needs to be more to this for an article to be outstanding. The article lacks higher criticism that would be necessary for any featured article. What makes the game particularly noteworthy and how does it compare in the larger cultural context to similar games? What have cultural critics said about it? There is also a lot of discussion surrounding video gaming culture that could be included in a featured article but is missing here. Is the game appealing to a certain demographic and, if so, why? What kind of profit did the company make on the game and did it make or exceed expectations? What do critics have to say about the content and the technology utilization? Finally, why does this game deserve any attention whatsoever? If there hasn't been a lot of attention paid to this game by people who can provide a larger context for it, I'm not sure there is much that can be done given Wikipedia's guidelines on original research, but a truly good article on this subject would include analysis that would be thought-provoking. If no analysis can be found in reliable sources, I'm afraid it just may not be possible to make this a featured article until such sources exist. This is in no way to detract from the hard-work that the people who wrote this article put into it. It's just to say that there are limitations to what can be a great piece of work on Wikipedia. Sorry. jps (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. There are many featured video game articles that do not have the level of analysis you're asking. There's a whole Reception section of criticism in the article. --JDC808 ♫ 21:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm coming to understand that the standards for featured articles have become a little bit more lax that what I remember, but when I complained, people say, "so participate in FAC". So here I am. I really don't know what else to tell you. I do think it is possible to write excellent articles on video games, and perhaps even this video game, but I'm not sure if Wikipedia policies will allow it considering that sourcing seems to be an issue for some of these less heady subjects. This isn't your fault at all, it's just the way things have developed. jps (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do hope that the delegates consider this oppose non-actionable. You'll be hard pressed to find any serious academic research, answering most of you questions, on such a recent video game, particularly one which is blatantly commercial. If you know such sources exist but aren't used, then that might be actionable, but asking for something that's never been written goes against everything FAC should stand for. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The presumption that every single Wikipedia article could eventually be featured is one I find highly problematic. There are some subjects that Wikipedia simply is not capable of accommodating at the level necessary for it to represent the highest-quality article possible to be written (this is simply not a professional-quality article, but, as I stated above, it is not the fault of the nominator that this is so). I hope that delegates consider this carefully: by promoting articles that fail featured article criteria 1b) because Wikipedia simply does not allow the kind of research that would be necessary to make a comprehensive article on the subject, the idea that "featured articles" are actually high-quality pieces will no longer be true. jps (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps not every article could eventually be featured, but I see no reason why this article could not be featured. I see context given in the Setting and Development sections. The only thing I see lacking, and there may be nothing on it, is a possible impact or influence of the game. Did Sony doing anything differently because of this game? --Odie5533 (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a delegate myself, I would discount this oppose because it requires something that is outside of the FAC criteria. Opposes must address the article with realistic expectations of why it misses the current criteria and how it does so. What jps is asking for simply cannot be addressed because, as Crisco says, it doesn't exist for a game like this. — ΛΧΣ21 11:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criteria 1b) is not outside the FAC criteria. jps (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is not criteria 1b, but how you are applying it. Criteria 1b applies for source material that exists, not that is desirable. — ΛΧΣ21 19:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, Criteria 1b) says absolutely nothing about whether source material exists. Try again or get consensus to modify the criteria. jps (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is fairly evident that 1b) is only about material that exists. Under your perspective, ninety percent of the current featured articles should be demoted because of 1b then, which would be a pity. — ΛΧΣ21 03:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not evident to me at all. Featured articles should represent the best-possible work similar to the best-possible found anywhere else, and sometimes that's not something that can be presented within the confines of Wikipedia since this website is set up to regurgitate rather than truly innovate. There definitely are featured articles which provide context perfectly well with the sources that exist. I am simply of the opinion that if an article does not do this then the article shouldn't be featured. It's not an insult, it's just that it's not the best possible because Wikipedia doesn't allow it. I haven't done a systematic study, but even if you are correct and 90% of the articles shouldn't be featured, it's better to remove the problems than to keep them maintained just because it would be a "pity". Editorial review processes should be exacting. There is always the option of scrapping the standards or making them clear that they aren't about the best possible article, but only the best possible "Wikipedia" article. I admit that sometimes I think that FAC has turned into such a closed shop, but there was a time when it was set-up to actually look for content that was better independent of the strictures of this website (or, rather, in spite of the strictures). jps (talk) 03:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but best possible translates to if exists to me, which is exactly what I am saying. I don't understand what do you exactly mean by saying that "Wikipedia doesn't allow it," since we can include almost anything as long as it's a reliable source, of high quality. A featured article must contain exactly all, if not more, that any printed encyclopedia would have. As far as I know, printed encyclopedias only include content that is verifiable, e.g., that exists. They don't go braggin' about how a topic could be best covered, because that's the work of the sources, not the encyclopedia. — ΛΧΣ21 04:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow, if the material doesn't exist to put something in the proper context, how can it be described as satisfying the completeness criteria. How can an inherently incomplete article be described as one of the "best articles Wikipedia has to offer"? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that completeness is based in material that exists. Isn't it? — ΛΧΣ21 04:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you assume that? If you can not write a complete treatment of a topic because the sources don't exist for that topic then it is inherently incomplete until those sources exist. It can not be the best of the best on wikipedia because of that. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the issue here is that Jps is asking for something that most video games never receive. All video games receive the same coverage: reviews from magazines, interviews with the developers and news post about their development, which are the sources used to write video game articles. Video games don't receive scientific or analytic coverage about their impact on society, on a cultural or technical way. Only a few games receive such a treatment (the GTA series, for example) but not all of them. It's just simply something that is unusual for video games, in and out Wikipedia. So, asking for such sources to write about that is something that would never be actionable. This article has everything anyone would search for in a video game article, and by no means is incomplete. — ΛΧΣ21 14:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have an assumption there, that I agree that most games should be able to be featured. I am under no such illusion. Put it like this, when people want to look at the reliability of wikipedia, they don't look at how accurate the games article are because they are mostly irrelevant in the real world. They look at the articles that actually matter like those about history, science, or art/culture with a major impact etc. Games are part of culture, and there is no sign that the place of this game in culture can be discerned. It is those articles about areas of culture where the proper contextualisation can be given that we truly have the best of the best, it is this inherent lack of contextualisation that indicates it should not be featured. This article is not the best of the best, and can't be unless those sources exist to put it into context. It seems to me that FAC is moving away from "the article is one of the best" so it should be featured to "We can't see how to improve this article therefore it should be featured". IRWolfie- (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are an amateur when it comes to encyclopedia writing, as am I. I do, however, know professional encyclopedia writers. They tell me and I concur through my consumption of such content that the best articles are the ones that are written with an eye towards explaining a subject that is not well explained in other sources. This is forbidden at Wikipedia by WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH and rightly so because we don't have a professional editorial staff to look out for craziness. It may be that some academic somewhere in some obscure library has written an amazing analysis and contextual description of this video game. In that case, I'm sure if we could find such a source the author would be happy to run out and immediately use the source as a basis for fulfilling criteria 1b). However, if such a source doesn't exist, a good encyclopedia would empower an expert to produce such an analysis. Wikipedia's own rules prevent the author from doing so and therefore prevent the author from fulfilling the criteria for featured articles. If you'd like to see how such original work looks, go ahead and check out something like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which produces excellent quality work with lots of synthesis that Wikipedia would not allow. jps (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing the broader point in here. Not all topics are covered in the same way, and it mainly depends on the part of the human world at which the topic is most common to. Scientists won't be writing about video games, for example. Articles, and their related topics evolve corresponding to the people who write about them, and find themselves interested about them. But you know all of this. Now, asking for an article like this to contain the same amount of analysis as, say, an article about a chemical element is apples to oranges. I think that sometimes people forget that Wikipedia is a reference source of information, not a source of analysis. — ΛΧΣ21 04:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing the point that it is possible to outline what an excellent article about a video game should look like and this is not it. jps (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just agree to disagree then. This article is up to our standards and thus there is nothing here against its promotion. — ΛΧΣ21 02:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe this article is "up to our standards", then changing criteria 1b should be the result of this discussion so you don't mislead people like me. I was bold a followed my own advice: [24]. jps (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I consider that it is extremely obvious given our guidelines that everything we write should be based on reliable sources, I consider that your edit is good. Sometimes being explicit is the best way to avoid being mislead. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21 14:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between "basing" something in reliable sources and only including analysis that is done in reliable sources. The current ethos of this website is to encourage people not to go "beyond" the sources which is what would be required to actually do what I'm asking above. It's not hard to contextualize Sparta in terms of the academic work that has been done on the subject, but if no reliable source actually does it, WIkipedians' hands are tied. jps (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you very well know that our hands are tied, then why asking for something you know can't be done? To make a point? — ΛΧΣ21 15:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - reverted the change as without consensus. More to the point, could this discussion please be continued outside of this nomination? It's kind of unfair against the nominator to discuss a general question in one specific nomination. GermanJoe (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General question? The comment given was about how this specific nom should not be featured since it does not give the kind of context one would expect of the best wikipedia has to offer. To draw an analogy, there are notable topics which are inherently stubs due to lack of sources, one would assume they can not become featured, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no lack of sources here. There is a lack of sources that would satisfy jps' demands, which are outside of the FAC criteria. — ΛΧΣ21 01:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I consider this "oppose" as non-actionable. Although the discussion is interesting, this this is not right forum. Did I miss a source and image review? Graham Colm (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, I've messaged a couple editors to see if they would be available to do those. --JDC808 ♫ 05:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Graham Colm (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "non-actionable" oppose implies in the context of featured articles "default to listing". I hope you understand that this is highly objectionable from the standpoint of curating a collection of high-quality articles that are comparable to the best any professional source would have to offer. jps (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Image check - all OK (fair-use OK for identification and gameplay screenshot of discussed features). Tweaked one purpose and captions.

  • fair-use - whenever possible, please check if a lower resolution image may serve the same purpose and try to stay within the recommended guideline of 100,000 pixels per image (just a note, no action required with 130K being not that far off). GermanJoe (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 21:44, 8 October 2013 (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 10:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC) [25].[reply]

Enrico Fermi[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting one of the most important scientists of the 20th Century… Enrico Fermi Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some details from the infobox are unsourced - for example, that Steinberger was his student
  • Bretscher title should use endash
  • Check alphabetization of References
  • FN3 is incomplete
  • FN31: publisher?
  • Be consistent in whether you include location for books, and if so when/whether state is specified. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All these points have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Quadell

Support. All the issues I identified were resolved below. In addition, I made a few minor changes involving grammar and wording. (Feel free to revert any of these changes you dislike; any wording is fine, so long as it's grammatically correct and factually accurate.) I believe this article to be reasonably complete, well-sourced, appropriately illustrated, and in conformity with our MoS. I'm convinced that this fulfills all our criteria for a featured article, and I hope it gets the reviews it needs in order to be promoted. – Quadell (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues

First off, this article has a lot of strengths. The lede is excellent. The few citations in the lede are appropriate (one is a direct quote, the other a potentially-controversial statement). Every statement in the article seems to be cited to a reliable source -- I checked several and found the article claims fully supported and synthesized appropriately without plagiarism. That was particularly encouraging to see. I only found one image problem. Fermi is clearly an important historical figure, worthy of a featured article. The article seems well organized, and reasonably complete.

But throughout the article there are grammar problems or places where the wording could be clearer. Here are some specific places I found right up front, but there are many more.

  • Lede: He didn't really initiate the reaction "when it went critical on December 2", since he initiated it before that. You should probably say he initiated the reaction "that went critical on 2 December".
  • Lede: "and when the B Reactor at the Hanford Site went critical".
  • Early life: no comma needed after "As a young boy".
  • Early life: "during the administration of anesthesia" (no "the")
    • Removed, although it seem fine to me.. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life: There are too many dependent clauses and phrases before the verb in "The 900-page book, titled Elementorum physicae mathematicae, written in Latin by Jesuit Father Andrea Caraffa, a professor at the Collegio Romano, covered..." Try breaking into two sentences.

Other comment I've just noticed that the FERMIAC is mentionned as an image, but completely undiscussed in the main text of the article. That seems a bit weird to me. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Early life: It should be "student named Enrico Persico", not "student named Enrico, Enrico Persico".
    • Done, although it seem fine to me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many other examples. A thorough proofreading for prose improvement would be a good idea. Perhaps GOCE would be able to help?

I appreciate you quickly making the specific fixes I identified in the lede and first of nine sections. But I still think it needs a thorough check for grammar and style througout. – Quadell (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I found the following other issues.

  • The section on "Post-war work" seems a little slim. In this period, he took several controversial stands and testified at a vey important hearing... but this is barely touched on in the article. His "Fermi Paradox" gets just a sentence. I don't know how important his later work related to pions and muons was -- the article calls the work "important" -- but it gets two short sentences.
    • To me, the Fermi Paradox is just a footnote, but it does have its own article, and is much beloved of the SETI crowd. I will expand this a bit The usual pattern with scientists is that they do most of their important work while young. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right that his career before 1945 is more noteworthy. And you're right that giving too much detail regarding (for instance) the Fermi Paradox would introduce balance issues. Still, on the whole, I think the post-war section should be longer, to balance the rest of the article. Currently it contains two paragraphs, a quote, and one sentence at the end. (Compare this to the roughly twelve paragraphs regarding the Manhattan project.) This post-war period deserves at least another paragraph, in my opinion. – Quadell (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:ChicagoPileTeam.png might well be "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties", but I can't find any evidence of that. Are we sure it's a free image?
    • What I know about the picture is that it was taken by the Manhattan Project photographer as part of the fourth anniversary. Switched the license to the LANL one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't find any source, either at LANL or at Atomic Archive, that says it was taken by a government employee. (Perhaps you have access to sources I don't?) Also, the {{attribution}} tag currently contradicts the PD tag. – Quadell (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The image is apf3-00232 in the University of Chicago archives. They say that it was taken by a Life Magazine photographer. Government sites attribute the image to the Argonne Laboratory, but its Flckr feed points back to the University of Chicago. That being the case, I have removed the image from the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fermi's relation to Fascism is an important part of his life story. The article says "He later opposed Fascism, when it affected him personally." But aside from the stray comma, it's not clear what this means. How did it affect him personally? I would have thought it affected him personally when he was appointed to the Royal Academy by Mussolini, or when he joined the party. Is that sentence a reference to his wife and the racial laws that persecuted Jews? The article isn't clear.
    • It refers to his wife and the racial laws that persecuted Jews. This is mentioned below. Should the sentence be removed? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't have to be removed, just clarified. You could simply say "He would later come to oppose Fascism", full stop... or even better, you could say "He would later come to oppose Fascism due to...", and then have something specific and sourced. – Quadell (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Moved some of the text up from below. The issue is somewhat controversial, but the facts are that Fermi was a card-carrying fascist, who openly turned against the regime after the 1938 racial laws. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are theories described in the past tense? I'm not sure what the standard is. Should it be "a model that incorporates the postulated particle" and "describes one of the four forces of nature" in the lede, for instance?
    • The copy editors like the article to stick to the one tense, and not continuously shift between past and present. In any case, we are referring to the 1934 paper. The paper has stood the test of time, but our understanding of neutrinos and the weak force has greatly improved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • My issue is that the model still exists (even if it is now superseded), and still incorporates a particle and describes forces of nature. It's tricky, but written works are generally described in the present tense, assuming they still exist. Compare the FA Hippocrates: it uses past tense to say "Hippocratic medicine was notable for...", since no one practices that form of medicine anymore, but it uses present tense to say "The Hippocratic work On the Physician recommends that...", since the work still makes recommendations. – Quadell (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The papers still exist. The article links to them so the readers can view them for themselves. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Why is one name in the infobox ("notable student" Jack Steinberger) cited, while the others are not?
    • The others are mentioned in the article. Moved the mention of Steinberger into the article, and removed the reference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, that makes sense. Fixed. – Quadell (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When these are fixed, and when the article is given a thorough proofread for style and grammar, I suspect it will be worthy of featured status. – Quadell (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All points have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that all issues I previously identified have been resolved. I hope to have time to do a thorough review (mostly for prose) either today or tomorrow. – Quadell (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments on section Manhattan Project I ran through the Manhattan Project section looking for prose issues. I found a few minor concerns which Hawkeye7 quickly addressed. The details of my review can be found on the FAC talk page.

Are you interested in reviewing other sections, Cryptic, and is there anything I can do to help? - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I just wanted to do a quick spotcheck of the section. Lately, I find section reviewing to be more enjoyable than full articles. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A good practice is that you reviewed one of the later sections of the article. Early sections (particularly the lead) often receive the lion's share of reviewer attention. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup yup, you've got the right of it there, mate. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the end of the "Professor in Rome" section, the article seems to suggest that Fermi's results were critized, but ultimately vindicated by his winning of the Nobel Prize. Earlier in the article, it is mentioned that no new elements were discovered, but rather that Fermi achieved fission and misinterpreted the results. That is Noddack was right, Fermi was wrong. This should be re-mentioned here for clarity. IMO. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read the whole thing, and this is an amazingly well written and enjoyable article. I haven't paid any attention to referencing, but as far as the prose and content is concerned [except that little thing in the Professor in Rome section, I've just mentioned], I give it the highest of thumbs up. I've added a redlink to I Rendiconti dell'Accademia dei Lincei because this is a notable journal and the article should be created. If anyone wants to do the heavy lifting, you can check out WP:JWG for some help on how to write journal articles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, and added a bit more about why Noddack's suggestion was not accepted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat better, but what I mean is read the following passage:
"The chemist Ida Noddack criticised Fermi's work and suggest that some of Fermi's experiments could have produced lighter elements, but was not taken seriously at the time because her team had not carried out any experiments with uranium, and their claim to have discovered masurium was disputed. At the time, Fermi dismissed the possibility on the basis of his calculations. He had not taken into account the "pairing energy" that would appear when a nuclide with an odd number of neutrons absorbed an extra neutron.

In 1938 Fermi received the Nobel Prize in Physics at the age of 37 for his "demonstrations of the existence of new radioactive elements produced by neutron irradiation, and for his related discovery of nuclear reactions brought about by slow neutrons"."

What do you carry from this section?
  • Noddack criticized Fermi.
  • This was dismissed. Explanation for why it was dismissed.
  • Then there's some explanation about something, but it's unclear if that's Fermi's response to Noddack, or what Fermi actually neglected.
  • Fermi wins the Nobel Prize.
It should, IMO, be restructured this way
  1. Noddack criticized Fermi.
  2. Summary of criticism.
  3. At the time this was dismissed. Explanation for why it was dismissed.
  4. Fermi won the Nobel prize.
  5. However in the end, it turn out that Noddack was right.
  6. Segue into Manhattan / Chicago era.
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compare with the way it now reads, which I thinks conforms to your proposed structure:

The chemist Ida Noddack criticised Fermi's work. (1) She suggested that some of his experiments could have produced lighter elements rather than new, heavier elements. (2) Her suggestion was not taken seriously at the time because her team had not carried out any experiments with uranium, and their claim to have discovered masurium was disputed. At that time, fission was thought to be improbable if not impossible on theoretical grounds. While physicists expected elements with higher atomic numbers to form from neutron bombardment of lighter elements, nobody expected neutrons to have enough energy to split a heavier atom into two light element fragments in the manner that Noddack suggested, and it was thought still more unlikely that slow neutrons could accomplish such a task.(3)

There's a brief interlude while Fermi collects his Nobel Prize (4) and moves to the US, where he is informed about Lise Meitner's discovery of fission. Then:

Noddack was proven right after all. (5) Fermi had dismissed the possibility of fission on the basis of his calculations, but he had not taken into account the pairing energy that would appear when a nuclide with an odd number of neutrons absorbed an extra neutron. For Fermi, the news came as a profound embarrassment, as the transuranic elements that he had partly been awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering had not been transuranic elements at all, but fission products. He added a footnote to his as yet unpublished Nobel Prize acceptance speech to this effect.

The problem is that the reader almost certainly knows about fission, so may find it hard to understand why the idea was so hard to accept. I hope that the amount of embarrassment that it caused to Fermi, his team, and the the Nobel Committee will be understood. The reader may be impressed by how well he handled it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Unus Multorum

This is a great subject to work on, and I commend the nominator on their excellent work both on this article and Wikipedia generally - as a relative newcomer to this end of town your excellent track record (and the fact you are a fellow Canberran no less!) gives me great inspiration.

My major concern with this particular nominee is that I don't feel it is comprehensive and detailed enough to be promoted as is to FA status. As a general point, a for a giant of the history of science this article would be certainly be quite a bit shorter than physicists of comparable importance with FA status such as Stephen Hawking, Robert Oppenheimer (which you did a great job on) and Johannes Kepler. That isn't immediate disqualification in my mind, but I felt reading this that there were a few important areas where I definitely felt the narrative moved too quickly. In particular I feel more could be done (which I've done my best to be specific about below) to flesh out some of the science and engineering of Fermi's work, which more than a few times really missed out on the steps to give the lay reader a full understanding. I've made some suggestions, and WP:TECHNICAL has good suggestions too. You are evidently very familiar and competent with this area, so perhaps you have yourself come to assume a bit too much knowledge - but I will admit that I actually used the Encyclopaedia Britannica Online article on Fermi at points to get the explanation for some of the theory and experiments he was working with, and I found that to be more detailed and stepwise in this regard. Now, specifically:

  • General point: The title of Fermi's publications are usually given in quotations marks as an English translation, then in parentheses in Italian (inconsistently italicized). Certainly the general format is correct, but the ordering I think should be reviewed and perhaps discussed. I cannot find a clear ruling on the MOS in this regard, however looking at FA pages of others who have published in languages other than English (see for example Johannes Kepler and Honore de Balzac; also the GA article on Albert Einstein) the standard format seems to be the original title in the original language first and then the translation in English following in parentheses. I would suggest the format for this article be consistent with others, and at the very least consistent within the article.
    The relevant MOS is MOS:Ety, which I believe says English first, foreign in parentheses. Will try to make it consistent within the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead, Para 2: "described one of the four forces of nature" - would it be better to just use the more technical term 'fundamental interactions' or something similar, as per the page its pointing to? I did understand the reference, but maybe it would be clearer to the casual reader if the general term 'forces' was not used.
    Changed to "four fundamental forces of nature" Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scuola Normale Supeiroe in Pisa, Para 3: "produce a Laue photograph, an X-ray photograph of a crystal." The dependent clause should be adjoined by an en dash or in placed paretheses here.
    Changed to an em-dash. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scuola Normale Supeiroe in Pisa, Para 3: "A sign of things to come was that the mass was expressed as a tensor—usually used to describe something moving and changing in three-dimensional space." Most readers, including me, won't get this and clicking through to tensor and mass makes it pretty daunting to figure it out. With an extra sentence or two, I feel it would be possible to make it clearer what what the significance of this paper was and add the extra background that will keep the uninformed in the loop. Unrelated to that, if it was a sign to things to come I didn't get it later in the article...
    Added "In classical mechanics, mass is a scalar quantity, but in relativity it changes with velocity." Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scuola Normale Supeiroe in Pisa, Para 3: "Using general relativity, Fermi showed that a charge has a weight equal to U/c2, where U was the electrostatic energy of the system." Again, why not go the whole way and let us know what c means in this context. I'm assuming speed of light....
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scuola Normale Supeiroe in Pisa, Para 4: "the electrodynamic theory and the relativistic one" is is possible to link through somehow to these theories?
    Only the first; relativity is already linked earlier. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Linked electrodynamics. Relativity is already linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scuola Normale Supeiroe in Pisa, Para 4: "He proved that when close to the time line, space behaves as if it were a Euclidean space." Is it possible to be clearer to laymen what 'close to the time line' means?
    Added a link to world line, which explains it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've inserted a diagram, which should make it clear that it is no big. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scuola Normale Supeiroe in Pisa, Para 8: This paragraph only seems to say marginally more than the lead about Fermi's work on what is evidently now called Fermi-Dirac statistics. That maybe as much as can be said that is digestible in a biographical article, but given the importance attached to it in the lead I was sort of expecting more of a explanation in the body.
  • Professor in Rome, Para 1: "competition (concorso)", yet earlier in the Early Life section you reverse the format, using the Italian first and the English in brackets. Like the titles, usage should be consistent in this regard.
    English first, per MOS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Professor in Rome, Para 4: "In 1928, he published his "Introduction to Atomic Physics" " If this is a textbook the title should be italicized, not on quotation marks - MOS:Title.
  • Professor in Rome, Para 4: Again, this really important discovery seems to be not much more detailed in the scientific details and process of reasoning/discovery in Fermi's work than you've included in the lead section. Can this be expanded upon? Can we get into Fermi's work in more detail?
    The whole thing is really well explained. That is all there is to it. I've even linked the original paper. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Professor in Rome, Para 5: "After his difficult time with beta decay" - the only difficulty thus far seems to be that it wasn't published in Nature (and yet was published elsewhere), so this description seems at odds with the gist of the previous paragraph.
    No, that's it. His theories were not accepted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a diagram to try and explain it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Professor in Rome, Para 6: "he decided to try it instead". Try 'that' instead?
    Very well. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Professor in Rome, Para 6: "The paraffin induced a hundred times as much radioactivity in silver." Don't quite follow - as compared to lead? And what happened to the wooden and marble table top difference? Did they get to the bottom of that? Why is that mentioned?
    Silver was being bombarded. The table effect was due to the hydrogen in the wood. Added an explanation. It was an important clue. It also highlights how important even the smallest details are to an experimentalist. Added that it is the hydrogen in the wood that does the trick. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent on the table bit, but there is still not reference for the 100x times point - induces 100x the radioactivity compared to its natural state? Or the lead he originally was experimenting with? Unus Multorum (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This must be too difficult for the reader to follow, so I have removed it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not, anyone can understand that Fermi tried paraffin wax after lead, you just need to be clearer in your use of language. In this case, "one hundred times as much radioactivity in silver" does not make it clear whether this result refers to lead, which he originally experimented with, or as compared to its natural state. If you are having trouble putting the science into clear language, there's a good page from the Franklin Institute | that really does this well and adds why slowing the neutrons is so relevant to the experiment, which I think should also be added here. Unus Multorum (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the Franklin version isn't any better. You would have the same problem with its description as with mine, focusing on the unimportant lead, and still think that the hundredfold improvement was compared to a lead moderator. My description was clearer; a reader of the Franklin version might mistakenly think Fermi actually tried the experiment with lead. In fact, this version may be where you got that idea from in the first place. We'll go without mentioning the lead. Common sense also tells you that the slow neutrons are not more likely to collide with atoms than the faster ones. Again, I think that my version is more correct. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah! OK now I get it, the lead was never used as a moderator - but you might understand how in your original phrasing, and in that secondary source I looked at, it seemed as if lead was somehow being used as the original moderator. And I do think the explanation of what neutron slowing is and why its important to this experiment is beneficial, as I don't think the average reader with a non-physics background will necessarily make the connection. Unus Multorum (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added an explanation of how a neutron moderator works. Again, the article is about Fermi, not physics. The reader is supposed to turn to the sub articles for the detailed explanations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It describes it pretty well, I think. You can try the formula yourself: . Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's also some brilliant stuff in Fermi's paper on neutrinos, which is linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Professor in Rome, Paras 5 & 6: For the layman, too many explanatory steps are missing to make this easily understood. Why did Fermi reason neutrons, lacking electric charge, would not be deflected in this experiment? The science of neutron bombardment could be explained better here, or there could be a link somewhere to a more complete explanation of the process. And why is slowing the neutrons so important here? Its not explained, but becomes a major factor in why Fermi was so successful in this experiment. It doesn't necessarily have to go into all that detail here, but without a clear link to another article that does explain this experiment better, it's a bit too confusing, and I had to look outside Wikipedia to get the explanation. Also, given this was the work for which he would be awarded the Nobel Prize, I would imagine in merits a more detailed, rather than abbreviated, explanation.
    Because they have no charge, they cannot be deflected electromagnetically. I'll expand on how the experiment worked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Professor in Rome, Para 7: This paragraph, on the other hand, seems to be more stepwise and methodical in its explanation, and its easier to understand the science and criticism here.
  • Manhattan Project, Para 3: "Fermi had dismissed the possibility of fission on the basis of his calculations" - a fuller explanation of this seems merited in the previous section, where fission is simply discussed as being broadly believed as improbable, not about Fermi's own views on the subject. This seems especially important given the relevance to his Nobel Prize winnning work.
    What more do you want me to say? I have expanded on it a bit.
    The reader might notice that if Fermi's team had bombarded the uranium with the slow neutrons, the uranium-238 would have indeed been transformed into plutonium-239, but they would not have found it, because they thought that plutonium was under osmium on the periodic table. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manhattan Project, Para 5: "The two agreed that water could not be used as a neutron moderator" - why? Fermi established that it could be used experimentally earlier in the article, so why is it no longer?
    Water is a moderator, but not a sufficiently good one for a nuclear reactor using natural uranium, because the hydrogen absorbs too many neutrons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great explanation, so why not put it in the article?? Unus Multorum (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is there now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manhattan Project, Para 5: "pile of uranium oxide blocks surrounded by graphite bricks" is there is technical different here between blocks and bricks? Also there are some really useful free diagrams of Fermi piles around, one of those would be really helpful to illustrate how these piles worked/were constructed.
    No, the wording was just to avoid repetition. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manhattan Project, Paras 9 & 10: Given the great importance of Chicago Pile 1 in the history of nuclear research, I am very surprised the attention it gets here is on other characters. There is more dedicated to the politics, site selection and reaction to Chicago Pile 1 than Fermi's role in developing it and the science/engineering breakthroughs behind it. The page on Chicago Pile 1 is obviously the best place for the full story, but I would prefer a greater emphasis on Fermi's role and the breakthrough's he made in getting it to go critical - in fact the story of it getting to critical I read years ago in a science magazine and it was a pretty interesting story of that month of development where a lot of Fermi's genius came into play. Seems to me two or three reasonably long paragraphs should be dedicated to this really important milestone in nuclear science and Fermi's role in it.
    What more do you think should be said? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manhattan Project, Para 12: "Revelling in the myriad of research opportunities that the reactor provided" - this is a bit of a hand wave, can't we more specific here?
    My sources aren't very specific. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also done for the Oak Ridge explanation in the next sentence - what does 'on hand' mean? Did he simply witness it or was he involved in it somehow?
    Yes, he merely witnessed it. They got him out of bed to see it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manhattan Project, Para 13: Suddenly Fermi is at the Hanford Site in Washington? In what capacity was he doing this work?
    It's all part of the Manhattan Project. Added a seque. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manhattan Project, Para 14: "development of a thermonuclear "Super" ": the link preceding super doesn't explain what a "super" is in this context, would be good to know.
    Added a link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manhattan Project, Para 14: Is there some conclusion we can draw about Fermi's work at Los Alamos? How much of a contribution did Fermi actually make to the end product?
    At Los Alamos? He arrived there quite late in the piece. He looked after the research reactor, and there was Teller's group working on the Super. It's really hard to tell. One of his most important roles was just listening to people explain their problemsHawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-War Work, Para 3: "opposing the development of a hydrogen bomb on moral and technical grounds. Nonetheless, Fermi still participated in work on the hydrogen bomb at Los Alamos as a consultant.": Wow, is there more on why he did this?
    Not really. An important point is that Teller and Ulam came up with a workable design. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-War Work, Para 4 & 5: Again some of these seemingly very important scientific discoveries are just listed, although they may not be as important or need as much attention as I am thinking.

Overall the prose and referencing seems very good to me - the article is eminently readable and of high quality, except for a few inconsistencies in the article on some minor style issues. But yes, personally reading it I feel the article doesn't go in depth enough into Fermi's work, and it's explanation of the theories and experiments in play are brief or not explained as well as they could be. But its a really important subject, if the nominator is interested I'd certainly be willing to help expanding this one a little. Unus Multorum (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All issues addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone[edit]

Support. Another excellent article.

  • "Along with Robert Oppenheimer, he is referred to as the "father of the atomic bomb"". Um. Two people cannot be one father. Options include: "Fermi and Robert Oppenheimer are each sometimes referred to as the "father of the atomic bomb"" or "Together with Robert Oppenheimer, they are referred to as the fathers of the atomic bomb".
    How about now? Both Fermi and Robert Oppenheimer are referred to as the "father of the atomic bomb" Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, maybe see if anyone else has an issue. I still lean to the view that "both" can't be "the father" but that "each" can be referred to as "the father". But maybe this is overly pedantic. Certainly won't hold up my support.
  • "At Los Alamos he headed F Division where he worked on the thermonuclear "Super". He was present at the Trinity test on 16 July 1945, where he used his Fermi method to estimate the bomb's yield." The reader has no idea what kind of thing the "Super" is. A reaction? A reactor? A weapon? When the next sentence refers to "the bomb's yield", we are left to guess that that is what the "super" was, but it should be made clear.
    Obviously not as well known as I thought. I have added a bit, and a link, so it now reads: At Los Alamos he headed F Division, part of which worked on Edward Teller's thermonuclear "Super" bomb. The reader can now click on a link to enjoy the whole story of Teller's Super. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the phenomena occurring near a world line". By this time, the lay reader is going to be lost but i think the article is doing the best it can, bearing in mind it is a bio of Fermi, not a text on physics. But at least wikilink world line at its first occurrence :-)
    I've wiki-linked the first occurance in the paper title. The next occurrence was already linked. My recollection is that you aren't allowed to do this. I'll revert if someone complains. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is a rule against it, then i think this is a case where i would favour WP:IAR. It is a sufficiently peculiar term - because of its non-standard use of common English words - that i think it is worth doing. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I think the diagram makes it all pretty clear. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The paraffin induced a hundred times as much radioactivity in silver when it was bombarded with the paraffin than without it." I didn't get this sentence. Too many "it"s, perhaps?
    Sigh. Re-worded again. When neutrons were passed through paraffin wax, they induced a hundred times as much radioactivity in silver compared with when it was bombarded without the paraffin. If you can think of a better wording, let me know. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but he had not taken into account the pairing energy..." Starting to get lost a little again. Any wikilink for "pairing energy"?
    Added a link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and conducted an experiment using strips of paper to estimate the bomb's yield." Too cryptic. What on earth did he do with the strips of paper? Use them as some kind of slide rule? Coat them in photosensitive chemicals? Needs another half-sentence of explanation.
    Changed to: He simply measured how far they were blown by the explosion, and came up with a figure of ten kilotons of TNT Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no mention of the bombs dropped on Japan or the end of the war. I appreciate Fermi may not have directly worked on those bombs, but given the entire strategic purpose of the Manhattan Project, it seems a little odd to go straight from the Trinity test to his post-war academic career...
    The two were never that separated. I'll add a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a bit about the bombing, and Fermi's reaction. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a paper co-authored with Chen Ning Yang, he speculated that pions might actually be composite particles." Did this turn out to be the case? Or do we not yet know? It feels odd, leaving it hanging.
    Added a bit of explanation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it odd that, despite his wife having written about life with her husband, we are offered no insights into their personal lives based on that work - nothing of her perspective on him or his activities or his politics. The cites of her book are confined to some (certainly useful) info about his early career.
    Is there anything in particular that you think should be included in the article? Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I haven't read the book, so i wouldn't know. But given its subtitle I find it implausible that there is nothing there of interest about his personal relationship, personality, her view of him / his politics, for example. Partly my point is that this is a bio of Fermi and should cover everything as thoroughly as possible, not just the physics and career. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I've read it cover to cover twice. His relationship with the fascist party is mentioned. Added a bit more. I think that the reader will pick up a lot of the character of the man from the article. But if there's something specific that you think should be included, I can add it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose I was interested in relationship, character, private politics... but as you say, you've read it twice, and have added more, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, close to supporting. My main query is the last of my points above. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried my best to address all of your points. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • That infobox is long. I'm not sure the exhaustive list of his students, advisor and institutions are of so important. IMO the infobox would be much more effective if you restrict yourself to birth, death, citizenship, spouse, known for and signature.
    • No, it is not long; it is quite short compared with that of other scientists. And it does not exhaustively list all of his students, just notable ones. Your opinion is duly noted, but if you want to take it further, you'll have to go to ArbCom. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impact and legacy: apart from listing the awards and things named after him, this section is sparse. How did Fermi change the way physics was studied and the universe understood? I think rare success as both T and P physicist also deserves a deeper examination, as does the impact of his Fermi method (have his successor physicists adopted the method?).
  • Bibliography: We know they are all by him. So why use that ungainly ______ thing. I suggest reformatting like Neville Cardus#Books by Cardus.
  • Patents: again, surely there is a more aesthetic way of formatting the section. Why does link stretch across the length of each bullet point, instead of just the name?
    • It's because of the template that is used. Switched to the cite patent template. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

—indopug (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I do wish that the next person who wants to write another book on Oppenheimer picks another subject instead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Reviewed/supported at MilHist A-Class Review, although I've pretty well gone through it again from top to bottom here, not just checked diffs since I last saw it. Copyedited a bit so let me know if I misunderstood anything. Otherwise happy with prose, coverage, referencing and image licensing. Structure-wise, I don't see the need for a separate Things named after Fermi subsection under Impact and legacy, especially since it's only one paragraph, but I won't hold up support on that account. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2013 (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 10:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC) [26].[reply]

Mistle Thrush[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I present to you the Stormcock in "blast-beruffled plume". Europe's largest thrush, named for its favourite fruit, defends its nest against all comers, and is equally vigorous in protecting its holly or mistletoe tree through the winter. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz

Lede
  • "a white chin and throat". The colour is certainly paler than the upperparts but it doesn't look white to me - it looks more buff or pale brown - for example see

this photo.

This description by Ticehurst under First Winter Plumage has: "chin and upper-throat greyish-white, the latter sparsely streaked with small spear-shaped dark markings;" I would be happier with greyish-white - although the spear-shaped markings makes the upper throat look darker. Aa77zz (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • "the chin and throat are white" - see above
  • " and the underwings are white" - does underwing mean coverts? The ends of the primaries and secondaries are brown.
Voice
  • Does the female sing?
  • Female thrushes (and most other female passerines) don't sing. This is one of those "obvious" facts that the books take for granted. Neither clements nor HBW state this explicitly although it's implied by the functions of the song as described below. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not obvious to a non-specialist that the female in entirely silent. For instance, according to Coward, both the male and female chaffinch make the "pink, pink" call. Aa77zz (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the Mistle Thrush it might be less obvious as the sexes appear identical. Aa77zz (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the male sing to attract a mate?
  • used to advertise his territory, attract a female and maintain the pair bond added with ref Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Distribution and habitat
  • Do migrating birds return to the same territory?
  • Birds that breed in the north-eastern portion of the range migrate great distances. Do they migrate as a flock? Do they fly at night? Do they stop on the route to feed?
  • This is already mainly in para 2 of distribution, clarified that winter-type habitats also used on migration Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Behaviour
  • How does the behaviour of the Mistle Thrush differ from that of the sympatric Song Thrush?
  • This is a bit of red herring. The sympatricty of the Song Thrush is only mentioned because of its superficially similar appearance. There are other sympatric Turdus thrushes like Blackbird, Redwing and Fieldfare plus others in Asia, and it's unrealistic to compare all these species (although they are probably all fairly similar) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Breeding
  • Is there a courtship routine?
  • Other than the song, I have been unable so far to find any indication of display Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the birds monogamous?
  • Do the male and female remain together outside the breeding season?
  • Do the male and female migrate together?
  • It's very unlikely that they stay together, but I can't find anything explicit on this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the pair bond last from one year to the next?
  • Is the second brood in the same nest?
  • "the male feeding the first brood while the female sits on the second clutch." -> "the male feeding the fledgling from the first brood while the female sits on the second clutch."
  • For how long after leaving the nest do the parents feed the young?
Status
  • "European population is estimated at 9–22.2 million birds" - presumably this is the breeding population in Europe - in the winter these birds are joined by those from Asia.
References
  • 13 Snow & Perrins should be pp. 1230-1234 (not 1334)

I may return later with more comments (or questions). Aa77zz (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two more small points:

  • When do the birds first breed?
  • Coward Birds of the British Isles and their eggs was published in 1920. A (scan is available from the Internet Archive). The page numbers tally. I cannot find a 1930 edition. One possible OCLC for the 1920 volumes is 2129580. Aa77zz (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My copy is the 1930 reprint of the 1928 third edition, I've added the edition number. Should I change the date to 1928? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 1928 date would be preferable. The oclc for the 3rd edition is 4279233. In general adding the edition is important as the content as well as the pagination may change. In this particular case the total pages in the book and the page range of the article are identical to those in the first edition. The article in the first edition also fully supports your text. This suggests that the differences between the editions may be small. From looking at Worldcat it appears that the second edition was published in 1923, the third in 1928 and the fourth in 1933. Aa77zz (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
changed to 1928 and added OCLC Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment - I've sorry that I'm dragging out my review. The article has "The survival rate for juveniles in their first year is 57 per cent, and the adult annual survival rate is 62 per cent." The numbers in this sentence seem surprisingly precise as in all probability the rates vary considerably for different parts of the range. The cite is to the BTO web page which in turn cites the very technical paper by Siriwardena et al 1998 "Variation in the survival rates of some British passerines with respect to their population trends on farmland". (The numbers come from Appendix 1 on p.291). I suggest that you specify that the numbers come from a particular study in Britain: "In a study carried out in Britain..." or something similar. Aa77zz (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, you are hardly getting trampled in the rush (: Amended text as suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sufficiently skilled at writing to be very constructive in judging the prose. The article needs a more experienced reviewer. I've made a few small copy edits to the article and I'm listing here some further points that you might like to look at.

  • "It feeds on a wide variety of invertebrates, seeds and berries, its preferred fruits including those of the mistletoe, holly and yew." Clunky?
  • "It has a stocky upright posture when on the ground, and the sexes appear similar." Comma splice?
  • "The eastern subspecies T. v. bonapartei is slightly larger on average than the nominate form, at 30 cm (11.8 in) in length." clunky?
  • "Adults will roam up to 1 km (1000 yd) from the nest on pasture or ploughed land, and they may be accompanied by their fledged young until the onset of winter." Comma splice? It may be better as two sentences: "Adults will roam up to 1 km (1000 yd) from the nest on pasture or ploughed land. After fledging the young may accompany their parents until the onset of winter."
  • The "In culture" section contains a series of bullet points rather than flowing prose but I cannot see how this can be avoided.
  • Each of the facts is notable enough, but there is no other obvious link between each fact. Sometimes it's possible to get more coherence to an "in culture section", but in this case it's not feasible Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article makes frequent use of the demonstrative this in places that seem odd to me. For example, the third sentence of the lead starts "This is a large thrush with pale...". In the Description section, "This thrush has pale grey-brown upperparts...". In the Distribution and habitat section: "Between mid-October and November, numbers of this thrush cross the Strait of Gibraltar..." This is only a sample - there are other instances. Aa77zz (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I was trying to avoid repetitions of the bird's name or "it". I think I've fixed all I could find Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources all appear to be suitably reliable and there are no obvious formatting issues.

Support - The article is comprehensive and well written. Another great article - I look forward to reviewing the next one. Aa77zz (talk) 07:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check: All good. LittleJerry (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Jerry
  • Comments from Crisco
"In culture section is very stubby looking
  • A point made by the previous reviewer, without any obvious means of fixing. Usually I can find a thread to link notable cultural facts, but there is nothing obvious here. I'm reluctant to take out the facts, but there is no other solution I can see Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
make birdlime for trapping birds. - Other birds, I should assume?
  • birdlime is indiscriminate, it traps what lands on it. The fact that the thrush may itself be a victim is the reason for the Latin proverb. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vatican - Avoid Easter eggs
  • I thought that the palace was probably better known as the Vatican, but now unpiped Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I hear "Vatican" I think "Vatican City" or "Holy See" first. Might be different for everyone. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
are based on obsolete names for the holly tree, which may be defended in winter for its berries. - Defended by what? Implicit, yes, but not clear
common breeding bird - what's this mean? I'm assuming all birds breed. Also, I think the wording "common to much of ..." would be better
More later. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Systema naturae - Should probably be linked, we've even got an article on that particular edition. Note that "Naturae" is capital in its article.
  • rufous - what's this mean? A link?
  • football rattle - do we have a link to this item itself?
  • What's the female sound like?
  • In response to the previous reviewer, I tried to make it clear that only the male sings (as with all thrushes), now tweaked to clarify that the other vocalisations are given by both sexes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason for the growth in range?
  • Although there are several possibilities, basically no one knows. I've said that now. Blackbirds made a similar but much earlier shift to more open habitats. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Continue tomorrow I think (just have two sections left) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominate Turdus viscivorus viscivorus - Should this be T. v. viscivorus since you already gave a full trinomial?
  • Sikkim - Link?
  • the south and east - of?
  • except in Siberia, - more or fewer?
  • 21 years and 3 months for a bird shot in Switzerland. - how the heck do they measure that? Also, what is the median age, if you have the information?
  • added that it's from bird ringing. No median available, although there is no reason to suppose that the typical longevity elsewhere differs greatly from the three years referenced for Britain Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from Crisco 1492. Solid article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FunkMonk (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[edit]

  • Could a photo more be placed in the description section to give a visual impression, perhaps from a different angle? The one in the taxobox is a bit annoying, due to overlap by a branch, and we have more ok images on Commons.
  • "described from an Essex specimen" Specimen collected in/from Essex? Seems a bit "esoteric" now.
  • "A molecular study identified" Link? Same for "radiation".
  • The description section starts out as a general description of the species, but then goes on to say that other subspecies differ from the previous description. This would indicate the detailed description is only covering the nominate subspecies, which should be mentioned if so.
  • "fluted whistles, chewee-trewuu ... trureetruuruu" fluted whistles, sounding like?
  • "wide range of habitats containing some trees" "Some" seems redundant.
  • "Early nests may be destroyed by bad weather." What is meant by early nest?
  • "There are normally two broods, except in Siberia," Why?
  • Source just states it as a fact. You would assume (OR) that the breeding season is limited by the hard winters (I doubt that they could nest in Siberia in February, as they may do in the UK), but I can't find anything that spells this out) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "important in propagating the mistletoe," Link?

Image review - All images are fine source and license-wise. FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - was very impressed when I read this article. Excellent preparation, comprehensive and informative. I judge that this exceeds the FA criteria. Great work, @Jimfbleak:!--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Is Coward 1928 or 1930?
  • Why is the BTO acronym included on its second appearance in citations but not its first or third?
  • Why not include both authors for Cocker short cite, as you did for Brown? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2013 (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 10:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC) [27].[reply]

Fijación Oral, Vol. 1[edit]

Nominator(s): WikiRedactor (talk · contribs) and Magiciandude (talk · contribs)

We are nominating this for featured article because we have put a lot of work into getting this article into tip-top shape, and after a peer review and a copy-edit, we feel that the article is ready to become a featured article! WikiRedactor (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up for the spotchecker, at least ten of the sources in Spanish. Erick (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support- I have seen this article undergo significant improvement. The prose is very well formed too. Although I do think the composition section could be broadened up. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments/Suggestions - If all or most could be made, I wouldn't mind supporting this article. Dan56 (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done
    • Personnel section's roles should be lower case except pronouns such as "A&R" (MOS:ALBUM#Personnel). "Credits adapted from Allmusic" is a sentence fragment (add "are" between "Credits" and "adapted"), and remove the bullet since it's not one of the credits. Also "Credits and personnel" seems redundant, so "Personnel" might be more concise and uncomplicated for readers.
Done
    • The sentence "...heavily influenced by Latin pop" would be more explicit and supportive of "Latin pop" being in the infobox if written as "Fijacion Oral is a Latin pop album", since that's what the source specifically says ("Fijacion Oral is proudly a Latin pop record").
Done
    • Is there a source for that last sentence in "Composition"?
Done
Done
Thank you for commenting, we appreciate your time! WikiRedactor (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, using templated "Done"'s is discouraged by WP:FAC. Could you replace them with the text "Done" instead? Otherwise, someone from the Wikiproject might contact your talk page about it. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing that to my attention, and thanks for your support! WikiRedactor (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The article is well-done. Only several issues in the lead:

  • Released on 3 June ---> I think "June 3" is more accepted than "3 June"
    • Well all of the dates are written in d/m/y format, so I think that would be inconsistent.
  • "As of May 2013, the album has sold" ---> I'd prefer past perfect tense rather than present perfect tense
To "were sold" right? I copies the sentence format from my other FA article Romances. Erick (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Simon (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"had sold" or "were sold" are suitable. — Simon (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How does it look now? Erick (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well-done, congrats! — Simon (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very muck. Erick (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Issues above appear to have been addressed and overall this looks like a fine FA in my eyes. AWESOME WORK! 和DITOREtails 23:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Wikipedian Penguin

  • Compare wiki-linking in ref 2 and 5. Ref 2 should have Shakira linked and ref 5 should not have either Shakira or Epic Records linked.
  • The way I see it, Metrolyrics is fine and dandy as an external link to the lyrics, but to cite it in a Wikipedia article just to say that a song opens with French lyrics is iffy.
  • Check for consistency in wiki-linking in general. If linking items in first occurrence, unlink elsewhere.
  • Check for consistency in publisher notation for newspapers like The New York Times: parentheses or no parentheses?
    • I still see at least one newspaper ref that does not have the publisher in brackets (ref 76).
      • Corrected.
  • Ref 11 is a user review and is therefore not a high quality reliable source.
  • Oh No They Didn't! is not a reliable source. Or this? This? This? I'd expect the best-selling songs list to be from a more credible source that deals with sales, like IFPI.
  • Ref 62, 66: language? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed all but two sources on your issues by replacing them with a reliable source. I could not find an alternative source for En Tus Pupilas having a French verse, but I'll assume that the lyrics are in the album booklet. As I don't own the album, I'll let WikiRedactor take over this one (assuming the user owns Fijacion Oral). I removed the information pertaining La Tortura selling over 5 million because I source that I see links it to the Yahoo Blog, which itself doesn't source its information. It ought to be removed from the best-selling singles of all time article as well. EDIT: I found the album booklet online and it does have the lyrics for the songs, so I have sourced the booklet. Erick (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media check - all OK (fair-use, own work, Flickr CC). Sources and authors provided.

  • Infobox image - fair-use OK.
  • Sound sample - fair-use OK. Added total song length and purpose of use. A "purpose of use" should not be copy/pasted from other summaries (fixed, no action required). GermanJoe (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- We obviously have consensus to promote at this stage but a couple of things first:

  • WikiRedactor and Magiciandude, do I gather this is your first FAC? If so a belated welcome... That being the case, I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- perhaps WikiPenguin could assist?
  • You have a great many duplicate links in the article -- pls review with this script. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ay, it's my second FAC after Romances. Since several of the sources are in Spanish, it might helpful to have someone who knows basic Spanish to spotcheck it. I have fixed the overlinking problem as well. Erick (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Spotcheck I'll try to find time to spot-check the Spanish sources some time in the next couple of days. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! WikiRedactor (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not off to a good start - ref 10 (El Universal article) is a broken link. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seemed that there was a typo on the url and it works now. I'd like to do more, but I'm not feeling well today. Erick (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but "lyrically expresses her pain"? Where does that come from - the article just translates the German phrase as "Come, baby, Come. Don't ever leave me" - no mention of pain. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the issue by quoting the German phrase in the article. Erick (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 18, 19 OK. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last paragraph of "Singles": An English-language version of the song ("Pure Intuition") was later recorded to promote Spanish auto manufacturuer SEAT, who sponsored Shakira's Oral Fixation Tour - Ref 33 does not support this interpretation. The source has "Además de su faceta artística, Shakira colabora con Seat, patrocinadora de la gira en España, en una campaña para recaudar fondos para su fundación benéfica 'Pies Descalzos'." - As well as her artistic side, Shakira works with Seat, sponsor of the Spanish tour, in a campaign to raise funds for her charity Pies Descalzos. - this does not state that the song was recorded specifically to advertise SEAT. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded and split across Singles and Promotion sections. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask if this issue has been addresse as well Simon? Erick (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes it has - I've now struck it. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Promotion" - end of first paragraph - ref 38 ("El Mundo") - the article certainly mentions songs from Pies Delcazos and Dónde están los ladrones but I can't see anything from Laundry Service, unless you include Ojos Así, but I would assume that is the Spanish version from Dónde están los ladrones, not the English version from Laundry Service. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Laundry Service removed. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think just a mention of being Spanish songs should suffice. I went ahead and amended it. Erick (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all for now - I may check more tomorrow. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 50; seriously, you're citing Facebook for this? There must be a more reliable ref. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 51, 52, 53, 54 OK. 55-58 are live links as cited but I haven't checked them for accuracy. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2013 (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 10:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC) [28].[reply]

509th Composite Group[edit]

Nominator(s): Reedmalloy (talk) and Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next in the series of Manhattan Project articles. This one is about the unit that carried out the raids on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

  • "code-named "Fat Man" arrived": You use "the Fat Man" (except adjectivally) everywhere except here, so at least consider going with "code-named the "Fat Man" arrived".
    • The term actually has two slightly different meanings. To most people, the Fat man was the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki. But to us military historians, it is a Mark III atomic bomb, for which components were made during and after the war. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. Nice work, as always. - Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Typo: consisted on the members
  • It would probably be prettier if the source for the B-29 table was changed to a cite at the end of the caption; like those in the organization section.
  • I'm not sure I understand this bit: Jabit III,[45] although the version shown at the 509th Yearbook gallery was first shown in 1997. There's a photo of Jabit III that shows nose art, but we don't know if it's authentic or not?
    • The yearbook contains an illustration of the nose artwork, but there is no evidence that it was ever painted on the plane. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • One dead external link, Manhattan Project is overlinked, no Dabs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd forgotten all about this, but the changes look good. Next time, ping me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Hawkeye, would you mind sharing the links to the other A/FA articles in this series? I wanted to see how this fit with those other ones, My talk pg is fine, thanks! Here are some comments before I review the series:
  • Some tables are centered, some are left aligned and some are bulleted lists w/different color schemes - I would standardize on one format.
  • I think the asterisk should be a footnote.
  • I assume the notability of some of the commander are worthy of red links or inclusion in the infobox, this is kind of an edge case w/notability since I couldn't find any of them made it to flag rank in a spot check but this mission is unique. Since the individual aircraft all have their own pages, you'd assume the officers would too.
    • No, the notable commanders is only for the commanding officers of the unit. the 509th Composite Group only had one commander: Tibbetts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant the links in the article for the individual aircraft pilots not the infobox, sorry I should have used a different phrasing. Mabye redlink LTC Thomas J. Classen, since he received a Distinguished Service Cross and participated in this particular mission, which in itself is pretty notable? He's the only one I found when I checked this weekend. Kirk (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead probably could be 3 paragraphs with a little work. Kirk (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Hatnote: The 509th Operations Group article includes group history and lineage as an AAF unit as well as history and lineage as a USAF unit. Suggest the same format as the note in "History"
  • Infobox, honors and campaigns: Kill the ribbons AAF/USAF units are awarded streamers, not ribbons. They are not awarded oak leaf clusters, they are awarded additional streamers with different embroidery. I personally prefer the table format Dainomite had developed to present these, but Chacu a son gout. If you have an interest, 444th Bombardment Group uses them.
  • Infobox: Bombardment and aerial transport composite might benefit from rephrasing. US does not use "aerial" transport, but in that era "air" transport. I'd suggest the first two change to bombardment and air transport since links in the infobox are freebies under WP:OVERLINK,
  • Commas to eliminate: II, and tasked with . . . Japan, in August . . . 9 December 1944, and activated . . . continue training, and were
  • [[Utah]], [[New Mexico]], [[Cuba]] [[Washington (U.S. State}]] to Utah, New Mexico, Cuba. Washington per WP:OVERLINK (names of major geographic locations)
  • "one of the ten original bombardment groups . . ." This only appears in the lead, not the narrative. It needs support, or this becomes a C-class article.
    • Meh. I don't know who wrote it, but it is easy enough to reference. In fact, there were some other groups assigned to SAC in addition to the origibal ten, but they were paper units which were inactivated on 31 March 1946. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change Great Bend, Kansas and Mountain Home, Idaho to Great Bend Army Air Field and Mountain Home Air Force Base with piping as you like.
  • 393d Bombardment Squadron: , without airplanes, needs support.
  • No need to pipe 504th Bombardment Group. If you insist, the unit was the 504th Bombardment Group, Very Heavy not the 504th Bombardment Group (Very Heavy)
  • Another taste item: I'd demote the tail numbers of the C-54s to a note (or put them in a table).
  • 216th Base Unit (multiple references): Unit designation was "216th AAF Base Unit (Special)". There has been substantial discussion of this unit on [ArmyAirForce.com] and its interface with the 509th, but I'm not sure doing anything other than correcting the unit designation would be permitted as not WP:OR
  • 1027th Air Materiel Squadron: Capitalize "Squadron" Part of proper noun
  • The 390th did not have an "Air Base Support Squadron", it had a "Headquarters and Base Service Squadron." If your source uses this exact term, it should be lowercased.
  • "basic support unit" and "basic support functions" in same sentence.
  • The 320th did not officially deploy. It did, see Maurer, Combat Squadrons, p. 393.
    • Don't have that book, but I'll take your word for it. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Valuable resource for USAF units, it is available online at several locations, one of which is in this citation template: Maurer, Maurer, ed. (1982) [1969]. Combat Squadrons of the Air Force, World War II (PDF) (reprint ed.). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0-405-12194-6. LCCN 70605402. OCLC 72556.
  • "engine-mounted front collector rings." Without definition is Jargon.
  • "remained based at Wendover" to "remained at Wendover"
  • Quonset huts: Seems like both words should be capitalized or neither.
    • No, the capitalisation is correct. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'for the 509th is winning the war" to "for the . . ."
  • Fat Man inconsistencies mentioned above. My understanding that the weapon actually dropped was a one-off. Although Mk.3s were essentially the same weapon, the differed from the weapon used by the 509th.
    • It was not. The bombs used at Bikini were identical to the Nagasaki bomb, and the post-war Mark III was essentially the same. The Manhattan Project documents refer to the Nagasaki and Bikini bombs as Mark IIIs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple linking of pumpkin bomb. And when linked should not also have quotation marks around the name.

--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, PD attribution present

  • "Unknown" title should use endashes, as should Craven, FN89, FN67 and similar
  • Ranges should use endashes
  • FN6: should include full publication title, which should be italicized
  • FN30, 50, 60, 63: page formatting
  • What makes IMDB a high-quality reliable source?
    • Well, it is used only to point out the casts of different movies. This could be sourced to the movies themselves. If it is a problem, I am happy to remove the entire Depictions section
  • 404 error
    • Replaced with another link. All links are reported as okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of References
  • Coster-Mullen: possible to include more specific location?

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I supported this article's A-class nomination, and after reviewing the subsequent changes think that the FA criteria are now also met. Nick-D (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support- No alt text on any of the photos from Tinian. Otherwise looks good. GregJackP Boomer! 12:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD-USGov). Sources and authors provided.

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 10:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC) [29].[reply]

Malkin Tower[edit]

Nominator(s): BigDom (talk), Eric Corbett (talk) Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This may be one of the more unusual articles to be presented here for consideration. Nobody knows what Malkin Tower looked like or precisely where it was, but its claim to fame is that it was the venue for the best-known witches' coven in English history; a meeting held there on 6 April 1612 led to the executions of seven of those attending as a result of the Lancashire witch trials. This isn't the longest candidate you'll ever see, but neither is it the shortest. We nevertheless believe this to be the most comprehensive account of Malkin Tower available anywhere. Eric Corbett 20:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

is there any extra meaning gained by using the word "transfigure" over "transform"?
Probably not, but I don't think there's any lost either. BigDom (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anywhere to link Lancaster Gaol to.....also Lancaster Castle....
Linked to both. Thanks for having a look through the article. BigDom (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, I can't find anything else to complain about, so I guess this is a provisional support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been living in Lancaster for the last few years, so I've seen a lot about the witch-trials.

  • Why all the references in the lead? Not a requirement, but I personally prefer keeping references out of the lead apart from controversial material/quotes.
    I think a claim such as "Malkin Tower was the venue for perhaps the most well-known alleged witches' coven in English legal history" is probably best cited in the lead. Other citations are for alternative names, which there's no reason to discuss in the body of the article. Eric Corbett 23:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When discussing the toponymy, you're quoting words as words (Malkin, Mary, Maud, etc). These should probably be italicised, not within quotemarks.
    The MoS must have changed since I last looked, but I'm happy to use italics, so done. Eric Corbett 20:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which is supported by Alizon Device's claim that the family of Anne Whittle, also known as Chattox, had broken into their fire house." I'm afraid I don't follow this.
    Did the link to malt kiln not help? I'd rather not have to get into explaining the process of fermenting cereals to produce alcoholic beverages, but we could always add a note to explain I suppose. Eric Corbett 00:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean that I don't follow why the claim of a break-in (and, as a previously unmentioned break-in, it should probably be a claim, not the claim) supports the possibility. J Milburn (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Because a fire house is a building where the grain would have been heated up over a fire, the final stage of converting it to malt. Maybe we need a note to explain that. I'm afraid I don't follow your point about "a" vs. "the". Eric Corbett 11:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The latter point is just that "the" accusation hasn't previously been mentioned. If someone tells you "the man is at the door", the natural response is "which man?"- if they say "a man is at the door", it doesn't presume any knowledge on your part. J Milburn (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But it doesn't say a or the, it just says "Alizon Device's claim". BigDom (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How about "A claim made by Alizon Device"? J Milburn (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In what sense is that different from "Alizon Device's claim"? Eric Corbett 15:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't assume any prior knowledge on the part of the reader. J Milburn (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I still honestly have no idea what you're on about but I've changed it anyway. BigDom (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is almost certain that Southerns and Device did not own Malkin Tower but were tenants.[18]" I assume not, but any speculation on who the landlord may have been?
    Not in any of the sources I'm afraid. BigDom (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When Nowell learned of the meeting he concluded after examining Alizon Device's "mentally sub-normal" brother, James, that Malkin Tower had been the scene of a witches' coven, and that all who attended were witches." Difficult to follow- perhaps split into two sentences?
    That sentence seems fine to me as it is. Eric Corbett 00:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who was Jonathan Stansfield?
    Added that he was a local grocer. BigDom (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there were numerous alleged reports of witchcraft" Unless it is doubted that reports were made, this should be "reports of alleged witchcraft"?
    Changed. BigDom (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where/what is Greenhead? I couldn't see it on Google Maps.
    It was where Robert and Christoper Nutter lived; nowadays there's a manor house just off Greenhead Lane on the outskirts of Burnley, near Fence, built on the old site. Does any of this need adding to the article? BigDom (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think so- a footnote would stop the flow of the text being broken. Without a wikilink, a reference to a place so obscure is unhelpful even for someone relatively local; this is especially important when this is in a section offering some theories on the location of the tower. J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a note, is that the sort of thing you were after? If you think the second part of the sentence needs a citation we can ask Eric, he's got more books on the witch trials than me. BigDom (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added citations to the second part of the sentence. Eric Corbett 20:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if Category:Buildings and structures in Lancashire or a subcategory is appropriate? Perhaps Category:Towers in Lancashire or Category:Houses in Lancashire?
    It almost certainly wasn't a tower, and may not even have been a house for all we know, so I think the present category is the best we can do. Eric Corbett 20:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense- presumably you feel Category:Buildings and structures in Lancashire should be reserved for buildings still standing? J Milburn (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never really given categories much thought to be honest, as I find them pointless and arbitrary. Eric Corbett 23:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting and well written. I particularly like the way the article stays focussed on the topic, rather than discussing the trials at length. J Milburn (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some more things jumping out at me- J Milburn (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some sources use ISBN-10s, some use ISBN-13s. Consistency would be good.
    All ISBN-13 now. Eric Corbett 23:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name "Mocking Tower" isn't mentioned in the main body.
    Doesn't need to be, it's cited in the lead. Eric Corbett 23:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "mentions Malking Tower many times", I think Malking Tower should be italicised. You're not referring to the place Malking Tower, as you call it Malkin Tower- you're referring specifically to the words he mentions.
    I don't agree, we're not talking about the words. Eric Corbett 23:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely, if you were talking about the tower, you'd call it Malkin Tower, as you do in the rest of the article. You're making a point about the way the author spells it; you're quoting the word as the word. I'm also pretty sure you're quoting words as words with "grimalkin" and "grey malkin". You're pointing out that the word malkin is in the words themselves, not in the things the words refer to. (See the MOS.) J Milburn (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually agree with you on the first one; if you were saying it out loud you would likely put some emphasis on Malking because it's different to the usual spelling. That MOS section is so short as to be worse than useless though, it just leaves you guessing what's meant to be italicised so I'm not sure about the grimalkin bit. BigDom (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Quadell

This is a very interesting article. The prose is very good, there are no image concerns, and the sourcing is solid. I do have concerns, some regarding the lead, others regarding completeness.

  • MOS:LEAD tells us that the lead section should summarize the article as a whole without giving any information not included in the article body. (For this reason, citations are rarely needed in the lead, since the statements can usually be sourced where they are given in the body.) This lead has some problems. The other names for Malkin Tower don't appear outside the lead, though they would be natural in the "Toponymy" section. The fact that Southerns was known as Demdike does not appear outside the lead, and neither does her relation to Device, nor the fact that the alleged coven happened on Good Friday, nor that it was claimed to be most well-known in English history, nor that 7 of the 8 accused were later executed. In my opinion, if the "Association with witches" section were expanded by about a paragraph to include more of the Pendle Witches information, this would fix most of these problems. Then the citations could be moved from the lead to the body.
    What the MoS says is that "... the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body", not that there can't be cited material in the lead not present in the body of the article, and there is no reason why citations have to be removed from the lead. And there's also nothing in the Pendle witches article that adds to our understanding of Malkin Tower; I should know, as I wrote the bloody thing. Eric Corbett 14:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly guidelines are different from policy, but featured articles are supposed to represent the best of Wikipedia, which will usually conform to our guidelines unless there are specific reasons not to. As to the material in Pendle witches, congratulations on writing an excellent article there. But I fully disagree with the statement that there's nothing there that adds to our understanding of Malkin Tower. – Quadell (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead unambiguously states "The house was demolished shortly after the trials and forgotten." In contrast, the body of the article hedges: "It may have been demolished shortly after the 1612 trials".
    Good point, I've changed that. Eric Corbett 14:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. – Quadell (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concerns about the article's completeness stem from the fact that the FA Pendle witches gives information about Malkin Tower that is not present in this article. That article states that in 1601, "a member of Chattox's family broke into Malkin Tower, the home of the Devices, and stole goods worth about £1, equivalent to about £100 as of 2008." It cites Swain (2002) for the statement, a source not used in Malkin Tower. Although this article does make an offhand reference in the Toponomy section to "Alizon Device's claim that the family of Anne Whittle, also known as Chattox, had broken into their fire house", it's clear that there is more information available about this break-in which would be relevant in an article about the burglery site.
    What does the break-in tell us about Malkin Tower, other than that Alizon mentioned a fire house? Eric Corbett 14:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It tells us of an event that happened there, and the value of what was stolen. It is one of only two incidents that occurred there that we have any information about. It's reasonable for the reader to expect information on this. – Quadell (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But this an article about the building. What does adding the value of goods stolen, or speculation about the perpetrators, tell us about the building? Eric Corbett 18:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pendle witches says, regarding the Good Friday meeting, "To feed the party, James Device stole a neighbour's sheep." This may seem trivial, but in an article that has so little information about the place, would this additional detail be useful?
    What does that tell us about Malkin Tower? Adding irrelevant material just to beef up an article doesn't seem like a good strategy to me. Eric Corbett 14:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is really my weakest suggestion, and it isn't clearly relevant, so I'll withdraw this one. – Quadell (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article says Newell concluded "that Malkin Tower had been the scene of a witches' coven, and that all who attended were witches." This is a very important statement, as it is the whole reason for Malkin Tower's imporance. But the Pendle witches article gives more detail: "On 27 April 1612, an inquiry was held before Nowell and another magistrate, Nicholas Bannister, to determine the purpose of the meeting at Malkin Tower, who had attended, and what had happened there." I think this information is relevant to this article. Again, expanding the "Association with witches" section by roughly a paragraph to include relevant information from the Pendle witches articles (along with the information in the lead) will fix this.
    In article about the structure called Malkin Tower I don't think it's relevant at all. Eric Corbett 14:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Newell's conclusion is the entire reason the structure is important at all. This is not trivial or irrelevant. – Quadell (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Then we will have to agree to disagree. Eric Corbett 18:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potts' book is listed in the bibliography, linked to a scanned version online. The External links section links to a different (and in my opinion, more useful) version of the same book at Project Gutenberg. You don't need both.
    Fair point, fixed. Eric Corbett 15:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to reexamine once these issues are resolved. – Quadell (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Eric that adding more details about the witch trials is unnecessary in this article; that's what the Pendle witches article is for. What we've tried to write is an exploration of what kind of building Malkin Tower might have been, where it might have stood and how its name came about. BigDom (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only details about the witch trials that are necessary in this article are the ones that concern Malkin Tower. I fully agree that adding information about York Assizes or cannibalism charges or whatever would be out of place. But material that directly relates to Malkin Tower (such as a burglary at the location) is relevant. The article currently admirably covers the aspects you mention -- structure, location, and etymology -- but a featured article should cover all relevant aspects. – Quadell (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it already does cover all relevant aspects. What you're asking for is the insertion of irrelevant aspects in an effort to make the article longer, which won't be happening. Eric Corbett 18:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, due to problems with the lead and a lack of context. If these issues are resolved, I'll be glad to reexamine, but I am concerned by the appearance that the nominators are not interested in working with the reviewers. I note that so far, two experienced reviewer have raised concerns about material in the lead not being mentioned in the body, citations in the lead, and (depending on how you interpret J Milburn's point) an uncontextualized mention of a burglary in the toponomy section not fully described for the reader. Dismissing these concerns out of hand may not be the best way forward. – Quadell (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with your reasonable points, and by I am by no means uninterested with working with reviewers, as I think my record demonstrates. But IMO you're quite simply wrong in several of your comments and demands, as I've tried to explain. Eric Corbett 18:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's remotely fair to say that we're not interested in reviewers' comments or that we've dismissed them out of hand. If anyone wants to read more about the witch trials, the Association with witches section links to a very good article on that subject. The citations have been removed from the lead section and moved into the main body of the article for you. With regards to J Milburn's point above, both me and Eric have struggled to work out what he's actually trying to get us to change, we're not being purposefully stubborn or hard to work with. BigDom (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I believe the Bennett book has ISBN 978-1871236279, which would be preferable to the OCLC number. Conversely, is there an OCLC for Potts? Otherwise, regarding content, I'm also of the opinion that a mention of the burglary may be relevant. If for no other reason, the article takes some pains to discuss the likely poverty of the property, but the value of the burglary puts that into some context for the reader. I'd also prefer that the cited sentence in the lead be uncited there and instead be cited in the context of the "Associated with witches" section; however, I don't think the current structure is in violation of WP:MOSLEAD, so if the editors feel strongly about the arrangement in place now, I don't consider that point actionable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answering my own question, the Potts source appears to be OCLC 633674946, although that does have a reprint date of 1845 versus the cited 1848, so I may have missed something. In any case, the 1613 original publication date should probably be noted somewhere in the reference. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed the ISBN of Bennet's book as I can see from the back cover. Not sure why the OCLC was given instead, but it's been replaced now. 1845 is the correct date, not 1848; I guess someone mistranslated M.DCCC.XLV. I've added the OCLC. I've also bowed to the inevitable and removed the last citation from the lead in fairness to my co-nominators, although I still maintain that nothing in either the FA criteria or the MoS forbids citations in the lead. Eric Corbett 20:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As everyone seems to be so fascinated by this burglary for whatever reason I've added a note specifying the value of goods stolen. Eric Corbett 20:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everything remotely actionable and more are now resolved; I've gone through the available literature to the best of my ability to judge it, and don't see anything significant that was left out. There's a claim in a 2002 book about the Pendle Witches that the novelist William Harrison Ainsworth visited the site of Malkin Tower as late as 1846 or 1847 (p. 169) as part of his research for The Lancashire Witches; on the other hand, I don't see anything to indicate that Ainsworth could legitimately have known (and, thus, properly visited) the location of the structure demolished some two centuries prior, so perhaps that's irrelevant to the article. Regardless, at this point, I'm happy to support. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, and of course for your support. I've been working on and off on Ainsworth, and I know that he spent some time around Pendle while researching his The Lancashire Witches, but the claim that he visited the site of Malkin Tower in the mid-19th century just doesn't hold water I don't think. Eric Corbett 22:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to thank you for your support, feel free to add any more comments if you think of anything else we could do to improve the article. BigDom (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first experience of FAC, so I've kept quiet and learnt what I can. Thanks for everyones involvement! I think the 1848 mistranslation was my mistake. My feeling on Ainsworth (given the dates) is that he visited the remains at Malkin Tower Farm. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upon more examination, I think that's likely the case, and I would support adding that fact if there were any reliable sources that outright admitted it (as such a visit would demonstrate the period belief in that location's claim to the history). But as there do not seem do be, I cannot. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images are both fine, captions are good. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • I think that the article is fine; Eric is absolutely correct in his statement that cites are allowed in the lede, even if they're generally discouraged. And that the links to the Lancashire witch trials and the Pendle witches suffice to provide context to this discussion of the building itself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much for reading through. Eric Corbett 14:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with nitpicks:

  • As "fire house" is usually understood as this kind, I do think a brief aside or footnote might be needed
    I've expanded the existing note to explain that a fire house was used in the final stage of converting barley into malt for use in brewing. Eric Corbett 14:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider a wikilink to Halifax, West Yorkshire?
    Done. Eric Corbett 14:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was James examined in the legal sense or the assessment sense?
    In the legal sense, changed to interrogating. Eric Corbett 14:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has anything more come of the 2011 discovery? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that we've been able to find. It's highly unlikely that cottage was Malkin Tower anyway. Eric Corbett 14:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking a look Nikkimaria. Eric Corbett 14:05, 27 September 2013 (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 10:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC) [30].[reply]

Amir Hamzah[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is ready for FA after a couple months work. Amir was easily the most prominent poet of his contemporaries and has served as an influence for generations of Indonesian poets. He's also a national hero, something which I don't see the number one most famous Indonesian poet, Chairil Anwar, ever achieving. I think you'll find his story a tragic one, and perhaps tissues will be needed. This article has had some input from Dr. Blofeld, as well as a peer review from Tim Riley and SchroCat. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim Usual polished work. I have no knowledge of the subject, but it reads well. I'm afraid I didn't cry. Inevitably, a few niggles before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • (28 February 1911[a] – 20 March 1946)—the positioning of the note is unaesthetic and contra MoS. Much better outside the parentheses.
  • his studies to legal school—"to" seems odd. At? In?
  • own Islam and Malay culture, —Islamic.
  • Islam as a religion, not a culture. Reordered. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • near one of the ones in which Amir boarded. —yuk, one of those, I think.
  • several conditions... be a diligent student and abandon the independence movement—Are two conditions "several"?
  • 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) —The 10 km looks like a rough approximation, so 6 mi is probably more appropriate.
  • Check that each use of "however" is justified.
  • Jassin cited text is missing location (Jakarta).
  • Albany or Albany NY? Stick to one version, and, if you keep the state, write it in full.

Support – I reviewed this article for GA and again at Peer Review. By the time of the latter, where my comments (few and minor) were thoroughly dealt with, the article seemed to me to be of FA quality. Reading it once again now and checking it against the FAC criteria I am confirmed in my view that it is a deserving candidate for promotion. – Tim riley (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the reviews, they've made the article flow much better! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Squeamish Ossifrage - Just a few comments here, as this is in quite excellent shape already:

Extended content
  • In the Dini reference, should Pangerang be Pangeran? That's what WorldCat has, and what Google Translate thinks, but Indonesian is certainly not my language!
  • You're right, my brain fart (I was probably thinking of "author", which is pengarang). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Foulcher reference, 1933-142 should be 1933-1942, I assume?
  • Correct again. Fixed both here and in Poedjangga Baroe — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, as that's who Hikayat Amir Hamzah is about. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also a Persian dastan (although, come to think of it, that may be the origin material for Hikayat Amir Hamzah). And a few sources seem to discuss Hamza ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib in a non-fictionalized capacity under that name. But, in any case, not going to quibble. Hatlink target selection is hardly a topic for FAC. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, the Hikayat was taken from Persian literature (brought by Arab Muslim traders, then promulgated as Islam spread through Sumatra). Hamza ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib may have been a real person (Islam teaches him as such), but he's also been heavily fictionalised. It's not too rare for fictional depictions of major historical figures to show up in classic Malay literature... Hikayat Iskandar Zulkarnain (about Alexander the Great) is one that's interested me simply because it depicts Alexander as a Muslim active several hundred years before Muhammad (another import from Persia too). But yes, classic Malay literature is not the subject at hand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's survey of Indonesian literature is unquestionably comprehensive, although I've run across a few additional Western sources that might have something to add:
    • Sutherland, Heather (1968). "Pudjangga Baru: Aspects of Indonesian Intellectual Life in the 1930s". Indonesia (6): 106–127. JSTOR 3350714. I don't actually have access to this one from my present location, but it is the most potentially pertinent scholarly journal article I could scare up.
      • I've actually cited that one at Poedjangga Baroe. She does talk about Amir, but the biographical stuff is fairly light and (if I'm not misremembering) already covered by the other sources. The article's mostly about the magazine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Siapno, Jaqueline Aquino (2002). Gender, Islam, Nationalism and the State in Aceh: The Paradox of Power, Co-optation and Resistance. New York: Routledge. pp. 72–73. ISBN 978-0700715138. Not a whole lot here, but a couple of pages that discuss Amir Hamzah's subversive language regarding women and the ruling order that might have a home in the discussion of the themes of his work.
      • Dr. Blofeld actually included a reference to Siapno earlier, though I've hidden it as she does not seem to discuss his poetry so much as his short stories (which are not widely read today, and thus would be undue weight in this article). Will see if I can find the source offline (Google isn't working) again to double check and maybe massage the paragraph back into the text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amir Hamzah's life and work were evidently among the sources adapted into the 1992 play Biografi Yanti Setelah 12 Menit: Bodden, Michael H. (2010). Resistance on the National Stage: Theater and Politics in Late New Order Indonesia. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press. ISBN 978-0896802759. Not sure if it's sufficiently notable or relevant, but sort of tripped over it while trying to see if there had been a film adaptation of his life (I would have thought so, but it seems not). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, no biopic yet (or even a documentary, that I'm aware of...). Afrizal Malna is notable (and has an article, to my surprise) and the play has been discussed in several sources, so I think it might be worth a mention. However, I should note that he doesn't seem to have been a character in the play, but rather his poems were source material. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference quibbles are just that, and I'm happy to support the article as it stands; my efforts to locate additional sources to contribute are by no means an implication that the article is insufficiently comprehensive as it stands. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for the review and support! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Collapsed my comments. Even my quibbling little issues have been more than satisfied, and I'm happy that a couple of spare sources I drug up were worth giving a home. No objections, and my enthusiastic support. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I also had my say at PR, where my few points were picked up. A further read through shows this to be a strong article and worthy of FA. – SchroCat (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - mostly all OK (PD-Indonesia, PD-India). Sources and authors provided. 1 question and 1 somewhat bigger issue:

  • File:Amir_Hamzah_portrait_edit.jpg ==> How was "c. 1935" established for this photo? Would be good to add that info to the image summary aswell, it only has "undated, < 1946" at the moment.
  • File:Ilik_Sundari_by_Amir_Hamzah.jpg ==> This image is beautiful and adds great encyclopedic value to the article, but i am afraid, it fails WP:NFCC #8. It provides important visual context, but does not strictly add to the reader's understanding of Amir Hamzah (and is not about the article topic, so the identification argument wouldn't work either). It would be "fair use" anywhere else, but Wikipedia fair-use is a lot more restrictive. Suggestions: Maybe the book source has some info about the photo's origin? If it was previously published somewhere else, fair-use might be unnecessary. Or if you want, i can nominate the image at WP:Non-free content review and ask for more input. GermanJoe (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm prepared to defend the Sundari image's fair use in this article. First, about the image. It appears that Dini, when writing her book, interviewed Amir's daughter. Amir kept a scrapbook / photo album (as mentioned in our article) with his pictures in Java – including photographs of Ilik. These appear to have been first published in Dini's book, as before then they would have been in the album (she does not quote her source though). When Jassin was writing (the closest to the 1970 cutoff date for Indonesian photographs to be PD in the US), Amir's family and friends had not admitted that Ilik was Amir's Javanese lover, and thus a photograph of her would almost certainly not have been published.
    • Now, regarding the use of the image in this article: that she posed, willingly, for Amir, while he photographed her, is even more depictive of their relationship than the photographs I've seen of the two together (where they are always part of a crowd). The way she's looking at him, the way she's smiling, it's fairly clear that there's more than just friendship happening. There relationship (how close they were) is a key part of this article. At worst, Ilik could be move down to the inspirations section and we could remove Tagore.
    • Have clarified the other image on the description page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, I think its a very valuable photograph.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - i have nominated the image in question for a more in-depth review at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Ilik_Sundari_by_Amir_Hamzah.jpg based on WP:NFCC. Please offer your feedback about the image's fair-usage status there. GermanJoe (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the notice. I note that this sort of thing can take upwards of a month. Delegates, thoughts on having an image up for review and its role in the FAC? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As discussed on FA-talk, the non-free situation will be evaluated outside of this nomination (tending keep) and shouldn't hold up this process. GermanJoe (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the content is complete than Indonesin Wikipedia, so I say support. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN29, 61, 101: page formatting
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
  • Location for Lindsay?
  • Balfas is the only ref to include publisher country; it might help to add a few more, and some US states. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just went with removing them. I could see having New York for Ithaca and Indonesia for Yogyakarta, Bandung, and Ende, but I think it's better to leave it plain. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I don't have much to add, just a few minor issues and questions:

  • Capitalise "vice sultan".
  • Shouldn't fiqh and tawhid be italicised?
  • Italicised in corresponding articles, so done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the fact that Hamzah was schooled in fiqh, was he a sharia judge? Or did he serve in the civil court? I mean, there isn't much written about his legal education, so I guess he was an Islamic jurist.
  • The Rechtschool was Dutch-run, so I highly doubt he would have gotten Sharia law from there. It would have been based in European legal tradition. I'm thinking, based on the sources (but not explicitly stated in them) that as a judge Amir would have emphasised traditional (adat) law, maintained by the nobility, which isn't quite the same (though naturally there are shariah influences). He would have likely used the Dutch-style law only in cases where the Indies government was interested. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is readily apparent to the reader. Given that Indonesia is a heavily Muslim society, that Hamzah was the son of a vice-sultan (who, as the leader of Muslims, is expected to know the sharia), and that Hamzah was schooled in fiqh (as I have said above), I think it would be reasonable to assume he was a sharia judge unless mentioned otherwise or unless the reader knew the exact legal system implemented in Indonesia under the Dutch (although, admittedly, had he been a sharia judge, Hamzah would have had a full beard haha). Please be clear about the nature of his court duties. Perhaps an explanatory note could be added? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, "not explicitly stated in [the sources]". A footnote to that effect would be OR and should not be included. Sources focus on Amir as a poet, mostly, and as such his courtly duties (for the nobility or in law) have been completely ignored in the literature. At worst I'll just remove the sentence to avoid leaving readers wondering. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't remove it, it's my fault. I didn't read your response closely enough. Sorry for that. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 09:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Hamzah, as a Muslim, perform Hajj?
    • No mention of him going on the hajj, and Indonesians love honorifics so if no Indonesian sources style him as Hj. Amir Hamzah I think it's a safe bet he didn't. He was still quite young when he died, so he may not have had time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check (2) - all OK (2 new images), just one minor improvement needed:

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 10:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC) [31].[reply]

Adam Eckfeldt[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because… I think it meets the criteria. Adam Eckfeldt was a significant figure in the early days of U.S. coinage. I've been working on the article on and off for a while, and it is a Four Award candidate. It's rather short, and I should note that I will be at the American Numismatic Association library on September 13 and 14 if there are any sourcing issues. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

  • In the lead, should "Chief Coiner of the United States Mint" be capitalized? I'm uncertain, and a quick browsing of references shows disagreement. I'm also not sure if the position is notable enough for a redlink; we have an article for Chief Engraver of the United States Mint but not one for the Coiner.
I do not think the Chief Coiner is worth an article. Possibly a list, since several of the incumbents have been notable. The work of the coiner is more mechanical than the artistic work done by the Engraver, which people are interested in because he is the guy who designs the coins.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the "Early career" section should be titled "Early life" instead, since the bulk of it is not career-based information?
  • In a departure from a usual complaint, there's quite a bit of underlinking. Most (though not all) series of US coinage have their own articles, which should probably be linked where appropriate. It's weird to me that the 1792 half disme has an article, and the Birch cent doesn't. Worth a redlink, perhaps? But the early large cents all have articles, so can be linked, perhaps like this: "When the Mint's initial cents were found to be excessively crude and attracted public ridicule, Eckfeldt was called upon to design replacements." And while there's not ever likely to be an article for the 1792 pattern disme, it's covered at Dime (United States coin)#"Disme" (1792), so that can be linked in the next paragraph.
  • I suspect this article is the correct one, but the claim here that Eckfeldt engraved the first half cent dies differs from the claim in Half cent (United States coin) that they were designed and engraved by Voigt.
According to Don Taxay's book The U.S. Mint and Coinage, at page 71, discussing the "first die made in it" story, saying it is very likely the 1792 disme (which was never struck in any number and is excessively rare) "its portrait is almost identical to that on the 1793 half cent, for which Eckfeldt is said to have claimed credit."--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, that's not the most definitive claim I've ever seen! Since you said you were going to be at the ANS library this weekend, I suspect that either Roger Cohen's American Half Cents, the "Little Half Sisters" or Walter Breen's Encyclopedia of United States Half Cents would have a more decisive answer. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ANA library rather, I fly to Colorado Springs tomorrow. Their catalog is online but I have no doubt they have them.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably, while I was at the library this morning, it did not open nor will tomorrow due to the excessive rainfall they are having in the area, so that washes out my trip. Not a total loss, I'm in Wyoming and will get some images of Oregon Trail monuments for my article on same. This from Google books of Breen's big book (which I own, but it's home) seems to say that Eckfeldt engraved the die based on David Rittenhouse's sketches. --Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph about George Escol Sellers is interesting enough, but it's an awful lot of space dedicated to a one-off interaction with a redlinked person. Why is this important?
It's not terribly, I was thinking to expand the article a bit in the last few months, and I felt it was worth including as showing a bit of the man himself, not merely what he did.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it accurate to link "master coins" to proof coinage? I'm not certain what the sources say on the matter.
    • Actually, yes, I've got an explicit source for the claim that Eckfeldt's "master coins" are what are now called proofs (on page 21): Johnston, Elizabeth Bryant (1876). A Visit to the Cabinet of the United States Mint, at Philadelphia. Philadelphia: J. N. Lippincott. OCLC 648304048.
  • The prose in "Private and family life" could do with a copyedit, I think. That's doubly true since it swaps to calling him Eckhardt in the second paragraph.
  • In the "Chief coiner" section (should that be "Chief Coiner"? -- I am still unsure the correct capitalization here), the references to the first sentence are not in numerical order. This has been my Mandatory Really Picky FAC Comment for today. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where it is a title before a name, it gets the caps. Chief Coiner Adam Eckfeldt. but Adam Eckfeldt, the chief coiner. The capitalization in the heading is because a heading begins with a capital letter.
  • The Numismatist is ideally cited as a journal, with volume/issue/page numbers.
Get those for you on Friday. I'll be online direct from there both days, 10:30 to 5 MDT, minus setup time on either end of that!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I didn't. I will email the librarian on Tuesday and see if she can help out on volume/issue if I can't find it online.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no firm commitment to either outcome at this time, however. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the typo. I will work through the ones I did not answer, and will report back when I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the ones I've replied to, I've addressed these. It is good to have a review from someone who knows coins from sources other than my articles!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Why specify state for NYC but not Philly? Either do both or do neither
  • Why the different formatting on the two Numismatist articles? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by PSky
Agree with Nikki. Plus you have N.Y., Ga. and Col. State abbreviation style should be consistent.
Why does the Camparetti ref have and external jump off the page number? Nothing else does. I thought a FAC rule was no web/googlebook links for things that were in print form (books, journal articles, etc). I may be mistaken though.
Image Check The image in the infobox needs a category on commons. This is all I see wrong with the images. PumpkinSky talk 00:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've dealt with the comments of the above two reviewers. Thank you both for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. PumpkinSky talk 02:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do my eyes deceive me? A Wehwalt article under 10k? I haven't seen one of these in ages!
Likely my shortest ever FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's with the quotes around his common name (i.e. in the first sentence).
    • which some - who?
I have added "authorities". More detail available by consulting the source in the body of the article, or our article (shoddy though it is) on the 1792 half disme.
    • until his 1852 death. - don't see a point in repeating the YOD in such short succession
    • at $500 per year. - receiving a salary of
Done using slightly different phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • When the dies used proved too brittle, and cracked easily, Eckfeldt came up with the idea of spraying water on the face of the die so the steel would temper evenly. - Used for what? And was Eckfeldt supplying the dies?
The dies were engraved under the supervision of the Mint's chief engraver, Robert Scot. Undoubtedly Eckfeldt, who was a capable engraver, pitched in as necessary, and was involved in a lot of preparation. Scot and Eckfeldt would have had to work closely together in any case to get best results. The dies would be mounted in a screw press and used to strike coins using muscle power (usually human) until they installed steam machinery in the 1830s. Dies tend to crack over time, so you want the best steel you can get and use.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brasher Doubloon - why does the article have double capitals?
That is how the term has evolved. I admit that properly the d should be lower case.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hahn died in 1792?
The sources do not say. Ancestry.com says 1796 but I'm suspicious of it because it says he had only three children.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adam's daughter Susanna married William Ewing DuBois, first curator of the Mint's coin collection. - Might be worth mentioning her before going into the Jacobs.
    • owned rural property in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, which was owned - Owned - owned. Can we avoid this?
  • Very stunning. I will upload background-free versions of the medals.
I'd love to own one, but they are not often seen.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images are okay - AGF on the old Numicist journal as Google doesn't allow me to look at it.
Thanks for the review and the comments, those are now all addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose and images. Another nice read. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

I'm coming a little late to the party. Apologies if any of my issues have been raised and answered before. Mine are mainly small points, but they include some suggestions on the reorganisation of prose in some sections and on increasing the detail in others.

  • Clash of tenses in 2nd lead para: "built" and "engraved", then "is responsible" followed by "was appointed"
Since we still have the coins, the responsibility continues, but I've changed "is" to "was"
  • "Even after his 1839 retirement, Eckfeldt continued to perform his duties at the Mint until his death, which caused his replacement, Franklin Peale, to seek an assistant." A bit confused as to meaning. I take it to be that the role filled by Eckhardt after his retirement was such that, when he died, Peale, his successor as chief coiner, sought to replace him with an official assistant, but this is not completely clear. (Note: I raise this issue in my comments on the main text, so it is perhaps better dealt with there).
I've tweaked the language regardless.
  • "John Jacob Eckfeldt had made dies for Robert Morris's coinage..." I don't think "had" is required here. More important, I think you should identify Robert Morris, rather than making readers use the link. The article is short enough to benefit from this kind of detail.
  • "Early life" is pretty devoid of detail; do the sources provide nothing more?
That's the gist of it. this is typical of the stuff I'm working from. As you well know, I tend to write long and cut later. There just aren't a lot of sources, and what there is tends to repeat each other.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coin designer and Mint official: I found the opening to the section a little too abrupt: there is no context given to help the non-American reader understand that the era is that of the aftermath of the War of Independence, and the establishment of the US as an independent nation. I would have expected to see a sentence on this background, followed by something like: "The Mint was created by Congress with the Coinage Act of 1792...". Also, it is presumably of some significance that Eckfeldt was based in Philadelphia, then the home of Congress, and was thus, as it were, on the spot. This link should be made, rather than the bald announcement that in 1792 he was making machinery for the Mint.
  • No date information in the third paragraph of this section. Thus "the same year" is undefined.
  • In the fourth paragraph, Eckfeldt is first mentioned by a pronoun. The paragraph itself reads a bit haphazardly, and lacks narrative continuity. A more solid introduction (references omitted) might be:

Eckfeldt continued to work intermittently for the Philadelphia Mint; in 1793, he built a device for automatically feeding planchets into the die collar and ejecting the struck coins, and the mint's records reveal that he did piecework there in July 1795. By October 1795 he was on the mint's payroll, as a "Die Forger and Turner" at a salary of $500 per year. On January 1 1796...

  • "piecework" should be linked
  • The last sentence of this paragraph doesn't seem integrated with the rest; is there a date for this bit of Eckfeldt ingenuity?
I am searching for my copy of this article and will get back to you on this.
Found it (it is a page image and so unindexed on my laptop). Smith attributes this to the late Walter Breen, but it is not in Breen's large volume and he does not say which of Breen's many books and articles it might be in. Or if he just heard it from Breen directly.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chief coiner" section: "On the death of the first chief coiner..." In the previous paragraph you have capitalised "Assistant Coiner". Perhaps be consistent. I would also specify: "...of the mint's Chief Coiner"
Instead I have made assistant coiner lower case.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "specialists have discovered that he inadvertently used specific dies which were never used together to strike coins for commerce, thereby creating unique varieties". I am sure this makes good sense to numismatists. For the uninitiated it is difficult to get one's head around; maybe it's the order of the wording, but I am struggling. Is the sense that "when striking coins for commercial use he inadvertently used dies for the obverse and reverse that were not otherwise used together, thereby creating unique varieties of coin"?
Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also shift the sentence beginning "Among the pieces acquired..." to immediately after "These pieces became the Mint's Cabinet, or coin collection", as it seems to logically follow there.
  • "...again became involved in the real estate transactions..." I don't recall redaing about a previous involvement with real estate.
  • (above two comments) Also, the wording "For $1,000, he purchased one of the lots he had rented in 1805" rather implies we know about this land, when this is actually the first mention.
It is referring to the "In 1805, at Boudinot's request, Eckfeldt eliminated a security problem for the Mint by renting two houses adjacent to its operations, allowing it to shut an internal alley to public access."
  • It should be possible to avoid the wording "cloud on its title", which requires a link to understand it, by simply saying an "irregularity", which is immediately understandable. However, I am unsure of the relevance of this, particularly in a section with the title "Chief coiner".
Given the short length of the article I am reluctant to strike it. I will change the "cloud on title".--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last paragraph the information needs to be presented slightly differently. We don't read until the final sentence that the reason why Eckfeldt continued as de facto chief coiner was because his nominal successor busied himself in other enterprises. It would be better to begin with a statement of Exkhardt's retirement; then state who his successor was and what he did, thus providing the reason for Eckhardt continuing with his duties and also explaining why, on Eckhardt's death, Peale needed an assistant.
I have a found a source with a bit more on the relationship with Peale and will add stuff shortly. Peale was quite a character and I have an article on him cooking in a sandbox.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Private and family life": "Jacob Reese Eckfeldt, another of Adam's sons" - you've just mentioned a daughter, not a son.
  • "Jacob's son Jacob Branch Eckfeldt exceeded both in time of service..." To whom does "both" refer?
  • As there are two images of the retirement medal, perhaps the text should include some context, e.g. who authorised it, who designed it etc?
Well, it was Moritz Fuerst. I will see if I have anything further on the rest of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your most thorough review. I have found an additional source and have added more material and I hope cleared up those issues you have rightly pointed out. If I have not replied, I have agreed and hopefully dealt with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Always willing to be of assistance when wanted. I'll read the article again, later tonight (got the TFA blues today) or if not, tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Very positive responses to my points raised above. Much text added (including, I was glad to see, a mention of the old family firm). The article looks comprehensive now, given the limited extent of reliable sources. I look forward to reading more about the evidently villaneous Peale, when the time comes. Brianboulton (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to do a shout out. Thank you for the review and support. We shall see on Peale.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Quadell[edit]

This article is strong. The lead correctly sums up all sections of the article, the the MOS is generally followed throughout. The images are all legitimately free, with all necessary information provided. They are used appropriately and have good captions. Despite being short, the article seems as comprehensive and the sources allow. I don't see any balance issues.

I made a dozen or so minor edits for wording and grammar, and one for overlinking. If you disagree with any of these, feel free to revert and discuss. In addition, I have some wording issues:

  • I'm not sure what "put aside" means in the second paragraph of "Chief coiner". A rewording might help to clarify. Perhaps this? "Eckfeldt set aside 'master coins'—[...]—into a private collection." Same with the lead. "Put aside" is just not a familiar phrase for me.
I've changed to "set aside" but they were not a private collection, they remained government property. Eckfeldt just contributed the value of these coins to the Mint so the books would balance. It's very clear he was a wealthy man.
I suppose it's clear enough now. – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The clause "He also restruck coins from the early days of the Philadelphia facility of which it did not have specimens" feels awkward to me. A rewording is needed here.
BB also raised that concern and I think I was working on it as you reviewed, as you edited only a minute or so after I did.
It's quite clear now. Well said. – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The single-sentence paragraph is "Chief coiner" feels out of place. First, it could use to be broken up. But second, it isn't clear what it has to do with Eckfeldt. You don't say if Eckfeldt knew of these ideas, or if they were ever implemented, or what. The third problem is that the source doesn't mention Peale or his visit. It could be that the sentence should just be omitted. If not, it might be better clarified and included in the previous paragraph's information.
    • Update: This has already changed, apparently while I was reviewing, but many of the same issues still apply. – Quadell (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a source (I actually had looked to check on the pages, but forgot to add it). I will look at the others.
Could you look at it again? I was adding matter right after as you were editing from the Ferguson pamphlet and it may well have been addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now it feels relevant, and seems to be in logical sequence. Great. – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last paragraph of "Chief coiner", two sentences in a row say that Eckfeldt "continued to [work/perform] ... without [pay/compensation]". Once is enough.
I think that's gone.
Great. But I'm pretty sure you men Eckfeldt, not Peale, in "Nevertheless, Peale continued to perform the functions..." (I changed this; If I'm misinterpreting, please revert me.) – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of "Chief coiner" is confusing to me. What time is "the time"?
That may already have been massaged out.
Does "the freed-up time" mean time when Peale was officially Chief Coiner, but Eckfeldt was doing the work? If so, consider changing the order of the final two sentences in that paragraph. (I think it would make the sense clearer.) – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "No children were born by his brief first marriage" feels like it could be worded better. Born from? Born of? Produced by? I'm not sure the best way to phrase this.
Born of, I suppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording "exceeded both forebears in time of service" is very old-fashioned and a bit difficult for moderns to parse.
I'm open to suggested changes there. "Ancestors" is just as bad. I can't say "predecessors" as they did not all hold the same office.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would simply say "Jacob's son Jacob Branch Eckfeldt worked at the Mint longer than anyone else in the family—64 years, from 1865 to 1929." Or "...worked at the Mint for an even longer period of time: 64 years, from 1865 to 1929." But I can see why that might not be everyone's preference. I don't think any of these wordings is bad, or an impediment to featured status; just pick what you think best gets the point across to a 21st-century reader. – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While 64 years is longer than any other Eckfeldt almost certainly, there were other Eckfeldts who worked for the Mint (Theodore, for example). The source only goes so far in saying that, and I would not care to go beyond the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a couple sourcing questions.

  • Is it worth mentioning that he was the first president (not just a president) of the Good Will Fire Company?
Added.
  • Is there a reason Scharf and Wescott's book isn't in the bibliography?
  • Similarly, the magazine articles in The Numismatist are in the bibliography, but the magazine articles in The Franklin Journal and American Mechanics' Magazine are not.
Migrated to biblio.
Great. That also makes the page number for "Franklin Institute" clearer. – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your responses. – Quadell (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've gotten to everything. Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I hope you'll consider the wording choices suggestions above, but regardless, this article definitely passes all requirements for featured status. – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support. I will look at your suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2013 (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 10:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC) [32].[reply]

Little Nemo (1911 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another of Winsor McCay's wonderful short films of a century ago—actually, the first. While it lacks anything resembling a story, it more than makes up for it with McCay's magically instant mastery of a medium in which he had no choice but be self-taught—there simply weren't any worthy examples to learn from. I'm hoping to have all the McCay animation articles pass FA by next 8 February, which is the 100th anniversay of his best-known film, Gertie the Dinosaur. If the public has any sense at all, they'll overwhelm the Commons servers that day devouring these little treasures. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pitch in with some copy-editing, and grammar fixes. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know what needs to be fixed; and what are the problems. I'll get started; once I know what to do. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This rather misunderstands the functions of the FAC reviewer. Articles come to FAC to be assessed as to whether they meet the FA criteria for promotion. The job of the reviewer is tell the nominator what needs doing, not the other way round. Brianboulton (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not a reviewer here. I'm just volunteering to help with the article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ruby2010[edit]

  • Lead and Background section: Inspired by flip books his son brought home, McCay "came to see the possibility of making moving pictures" of his cartoons -- the quote seems odd here and it's not clear if McCay said that or if another biographer did. Could the quote be put into your own words?
  • You mention theatres and audiences, but don't really make it clear where these releases occurred. I assume in the US?
    • I can't find dates in my sources, but I do know it was released in at least Britain and France as well as the US. Here's the poster for the French release. It's also reproduced in Canemaker's book, but without a date. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to this source (in French) it premiered in France in June 1911. I'm not sure the source itself would pass WP:RS, though. I can find no other online source for this date. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Mark Winokur?
  • Robert McCay is linked twice
  • It seems to me that the Style section would be better placed above or under the production section, but that's just my opinion. *Ruby 2010/2013 19:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another observation: You don't link McCay until the background section, which makes me think it might be better to have that section precede the plot section. Thoughts?
  • Ruby 2010/2013 18:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, happy to support this one for promotion (the release issue isn't enough of a problem to bar my support). Nice work! Ruby 2010/2013 03:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media check - all OK (PD-1923). Sources and authors provided.

  • Tweaked a caption and some license tags to PD-1923 (usage of "PD-US" is discouraged as vague template tag) - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[edit]

  • Should animated perhaps be wikilinked in the lead?
  • Some of the direct quotes seem so general that I'm puzzled why they're not just rephrased: "came to see the possibility of making moving pictures"? "the first man in the world to make animated films"
    • Mainly because they're direct McCay quotes, rather than quotes about McCay. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd expect a bit more details under production? How long did it take? What was the extend of assistance to the project? Whatever else that can be found.
    • McCay didn't have assistants until Gertie the Dinosaur. It appears that John Canemaker got a lot of the production details he had from later assistant John Fitzpatrick, and I suspect that's why there are more producion details available for Gertie and The Sinking of the Lusitania, and much frewer fo r the first two films. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise quite nice, short article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, pretty close then. One last thing, which you could also use to make your other articles with videos look nicer. You can add a parameter (|thumbtime=00:00|) that lets you choose which frame to show as a thumbnail. In this way, you can pick a representative/interesting frame that can also act as a nice image for the article, instead of just an automatically chosen random frame like now. FunkMonk (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I did that with ssome of the other McCay articles, but I liked the image that popped up for this one, so I left it (since it has McCay in it, it means I don't need to put his phot anywhere else in the article). Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I was also thinking of the Blackton cartoon, which has a kind of uninteresting frame. FunkMonk (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I've put in a thumbtime for that one now. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A last thing to consider is that you can always find Library of Congress images in insanely huge res, like the one of Blackton here, you've used such in many of your articles just in low res. You could consider updating them all at some point. FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm ... the LoC does have a copy of the Blackton photo, but the download links are greyed out ... I'll spend some time looking for better copies of some of the other images, though. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're right, first time I've seen that I think. Not sure why. And by the way, nice you're working on all these articles. I'm an animator by profession myself, so it is quite valuable. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments[edit]

Little Nemo debuted in movie theatres - as this is an American film, it should use the American spelling (theaters)
Done (two instances I could find). Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these images create too much whitespace. The black-and-white ones could certainly be reduced.
Hmmm...okay, I've reduced the one in the "Style" section of McCay sketching, though I'm not thrilled—McCay was known for the detail in his artwork, and I like to show it. Also, I've dropped the Blackton photo (at least temporarily) as it doesn't fit well with the the rearrangement of the sections. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Hauted Hotel - Really now
...oops...Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't subsection Little Nemo be elsewhere not part of the synopsis? I'd split the first paragraph with background and the last with Legacy
Done. Accidentally left the subsection behind when I moved the "Background" section up. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First bit of "synopsis" feels like it's blurring fact with fiction
Would "Following proclamations of McCay as" be better? Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
familiar - familiar to whom?
==> "McCay's drawings are in the heavily-outlined Art Nouveau style familiar to the readers of his comics." Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Academic Mark Winokur noted racial hierarchies in the Little Nemo strip and film. The Anglo-Saxon Nemo is depicted as "most human", while flip is drawn as a minstrel caricature, and the mute Impie is most grotesquely caricatured. - Race of characters not clear in prose
Added (and corrected "flip" ==> "Flip"). Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By late 1910, McCay had made 4000 drawings on rice paper for the animated portion of the film. - why?
"By late 1910, McCay had made the 4000 rice-paper drawings for the animated portion of the film."
Isn't production usually supposed to go before themes/style?
Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The animated portion took up about four minutes of the film's total length. - total length of how many minutes?
The video file is 11:33, but that's not stated in my sources, and I'm not positive that was the original total length—for example, the entire live-action intro to How a Mosquito Operates was lost, and Nathan and Crafton discovered this year that there is at least a few seconds missing from all extant prints of Gertie (a final scen in which Gertie gives a bow). I think it's best to leave it unstated. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
such as The Moving Picture World and The Morning Telegraph. - what do they say?
Added. Sorry this ook so long. Every time the book was within arm's length, I was too busy to grab it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Giannalberto Bendazzi called Little Nemo "truly a 'first movie'" - what does he consider the earlier works?
Sorry, I've only got snippet view of this book. The book's a history of animation, so I imagine Bendazzi has a lot to say, but it doesn't seem like it's being said in the context of a comparison with Nemo. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather confusing for readers then, as we're not able to understand why he ignores films which are clearly animated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm ... I'd thought the quotes around "first film" made it clear. My understanding was he was trying to express that the film has a "film film" feel in the sense of a lack of "maturity"—it's all playing around and special effects, showing off what could be done rather than trying to express something.
      How about: "Animation historian Giannalberto Bendazzi saw the plotnless Nemo as an example of a "first film" in the sense that the transforming series of images serves as little more than a demonstration of the medium's capabilities." Or should I just drop the phrase "first film" entirely? Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would be better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Now reads "Animation historian Giannalberto Bendazzi saw the transforming series of images in the plotless Nemo serving as little more than a demonstration of the animation medium's capabilities. Bendazzi wrote that McCay overcame this overt experimentalism in How a Mosquito Operates."
  • Overall a nice article and good read. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the responses. Just one more outstanding comment. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • My mother says all my comments are outstanding. 01:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support on prose. Yet another fantastic article on Winsor's animations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - read through it once - looks pretty good - just taking another look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The group laughs and implies he is drunk or crazy. - "implies" is used oddly here, I'd maybe find another verb like intimates, indicates or declares.....
Changed to "gestures that". Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you have "rice paper" and "rice-paper" - also should be linked in the body of the text.
Linked. In the first case, it's "drawings on rice paper", in the second it's "rice-paper drawings". In the second case "rice-paper" is a compund noun adjunct, which I believe requires hyphenation. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ahh, my bad. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose and comprehensiveness, though concede not my area of expertise! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

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, 5 October 2013 (UTC) [33].[reply]

Pavo (constellation)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another week another constellation. This one seemed to gel together okay (some of these are very tricky!). Anyway, not too big and I think I am getting the hang of these. So have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 99of9[edit]

  • "The constellation Pavo as it can be seen by the naked eye." If only God joined the dots and put a nice little label on it... I'd have a hope of recognizing the constellations! --99of9 (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2013 (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, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I've already reviewed this article and I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that. copyedits ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GermanJoe[edit]

I did some minor CEs, a few additional suggestions to improve the article structure (done):

  • lead " ... in 1597 (or 1598)" (both in lead and main text) => the alternative date would look better in an explanatory footnote (it's not that vital for the constellation). Details, why the year is unclear, are missing (and could be added to the footnote).
This was added before I beagn editing the article. this book I read a few months ago sits on 1598, as does the web source. Many sources have 1600 but that might of been a globe, not the first globe. Major headache. All ones which say 1597 seem to be tertiary sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first lead para is mostly a copy/paste from the first history para. Try to rephrase the lead a bit more or add a few other notable details.
tried a bit of each - how's that? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • history "The name of the brightest star Alpha Pavonis—Peacock—was assigned by Her Majesty's Nautical Almanac Office in the late 1930s; the RAF insisted that all bright stars must have names, the star hitherto having lacked a proper name.[4]" => all other single objects have their history, when available, in "notable features", for consistency i'd move Alpha's background info there aswell. So "history" would be only the history of the overall constellation.
Yeah, I was originally going to put it in the notable features section, then felt it might flow well with discussion on peacock name, but it can go back, so have moved it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • features "... Comet Levy,[45] P/1991 L3" => the Comet Levy article doesn't have this number, could you clarify? Why is the ref not at the end? Link "Comet Levy"´?
ref at end now. I think there are two Comet Levys (see David H. Levy - the wiki-page is on the one discovered in 2006, while it is the 1991 that is linked to the shower. I know little about comets and can see the other pages need sorting. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Southern Birds" => is that an "official" name for this group of constellations in formal works or more of a nickname? The usage could be clarified a bit.
Good point. Not sure. I've always heard and called them that, but how official is it? I have no idea, hey are not contiguous so it is not a particularly definable area or anything. Will have more of a look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an official designation, but more colloquial - but sees a fair amount of use. I guess it would be better in lower case and in quotations (?) See [34], [35], [36], [37] and [38] for example. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have added quote marks to indicate, that it's not a formal designation. GermanJoe (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I was warming to that idea Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A nice and comprehensive article, maybe a bit more polishing, but seems very close to FA. GermanJoe (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - made a few more copyedits (merged Alpha information and tweaked peacocks and meteor showers, diff: [39]). Nice work on yet another constellation (only 70-80 left for FA :) ). GermanJoe (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods, but licensing is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

period removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim just a few niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The brightest member, Alpha Pavonis, is named Peacock—Well, it's actually named Alpha Pavonis—Also known as? Alternative name? RAF name (if it's only used in the UK)? Needs clarifying somehow.
AKA'ed Cas Liber (talk · contribs)`
  • catalog... honor... likely having—I didn't think you could see Pavo from LA (:
aussified - added "most" to "likely having" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the constellation was meant to refer to the Green Peacock—So why is the link in the first line of the lead to Indian (Blue) Peacock?
aussified - this is tricky as the latin term as such referred to the blue...unless I reword teh lead to link it to the bird but not literally. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hera (Juno) lusted after by Zeus (Jupiter). —Links for the god and goddess please. Why do we need the Roman equivalents when the story is from Greek mythology?
having Junonia Avis - to show why I guess...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pavo is the radiant of an annual meteor shower: the Delta Pavonids. Appearing from 21 March to 8 April and generally peaking around 5 and 6 April, they...—Why a colon rather than a comma? Should it be it rather than they (shower is singular)?
I hate these bits - like grammatical hopscotch - something just too weird about "pavonids is" - so tinkered with it a bit..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Halley-type Comet Levy (P/1991 L3). —link for Halley's comet at least
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ridpath—just to check that self-published is acceptable for an RS source.
he is notable and much-published author. It is an online verson of a book anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No further queries, supporting now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment This article seems interesting. Unfortunately, I can barely understand half of what is written. Without a Simple English equivalent (somewhat understandably), there's no hope of making sense of the subject for me. While I do not doubt this article will achieve FA status, I hope somebody down the track (it probably won't happen) will be able to write articles about constellations in such a way that an average Joe like me could understand :) --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 09:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your honesty Sp33dyphil - we (well, I do anyway) strive to make all our work as accessible as possible, but maintaining accuracy does trump that. However if there is anything at all I can possibly simplify then I will try and do that if accuracy is maintained. If you want to try and highlight anything specific, I will try and do what I can to simplify it - agree that this can be much more difficult in some articles than others.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (including source review)[edit]

  • I'll be back later with a literature check. Sasata (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think the article meets the FA criteria (have left a few minor source nitpicks at the bottom). Sasata (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "35-cm diameter" conversion? (twice)
imperial units added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd mention that Uranometria is a star atlas in the lead
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Tucana, are known as the "Southern Birds"." no comma
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "appears as a 1.91 magnitude blue-white star" seems to me that there should be a hyphen here for the adjectival use of 1.1 magnitude; same for "third brightest globular cluster" and later "second brightest star in the constellation", "is a 3.95 magnitude white main sequence star", "third brightest globular cluster", "14th magnitude galaxy"
added hyphens Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link star system, spiral galaxy
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • what was the year of the first Dutch trading expedition?
I now have a bluelink to First Dutch Expedition to Indonesia - bit worried that it might be overinclusive to have the dates of that...do you think bluelink sufficient? Else I can fetch source for dates Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link celestial atlas, classical mythology, Hera, Zeus, Hermes
italicised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are called the "Southern Birds"." add "collectively"?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Junonia Avis should be italicized
italicised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "… have his way with her" idiomatic
coupled Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "made the peacock's tail ornaments with all of his eyes in his honour" unclear … the feather ornaments were made of eyes? The ornaments were made of eyes that were only in his honour?
changed verb to clarify Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whose eyes ("his" – Argus?) were used?

clarified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although he depicted Pavo on his chart, Bayer did not assign its stars Bayer designations." any interesting (or mundane) reason for this?
Bayer normally assigned his stars designations - it is unusual for him to depict a constellation and not assign stars, and would have been because it was too far south for him to know the constellation's star accurately I think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "American astronomer Benjamin Gould designated a star Xi Pavonis" year?
1879 - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • possibly useful links: Royal Air Force, Mercury, red dwarf, brown dwarf, supergiant, accretion disc, silicon dioxide, arcminute, Comet Grigg-Mellish, Comet Levy; Sun should be linked earlier
all bar comets done - not sure on notability of comets and there are two comet levys Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other nearby stars in Pavo are much fainter: SCR 1845-6357 is a binary system" according to the info box, this star is not in Pavo
you've lost me - which infobox? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm just misinterpreting the infobox; it says SCR 1845-6357 is the "closest star", which I interpret as meaning the closest star not actually within the constellation, but the article text says "nearby stars in Pavo". Sasata (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
aaah, no, infobox means in constellation Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the 1.94 apparent magnitude in the info box for Pavo is not mentioned in the article text
Good catch - the 1.94 comes from a 1978 ref - SIMBAD represents current consensus on that - changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that is only 19.9 light years distant" why "only", seems like quite aways to me
Not according to this list - it's pretty close really, so I think "only" is warranted... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "3.4 and 4.4, this variation" semi-colon works better here (otherwise is comma splice)
semi'ed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "years away from Earth, that resembles the Milky Way" no comma
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A supernova was discovered in the galaxy in 2005." does it have a name (or is it IC 4662 discussed in the following sentence?)
no it'll be some obscure letter code prefixed by SN2005...will fetch and add. added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • didn't the Chinese or Mesopotamians write about this constellation?
It is too far south for most and much of it is pretty faint - can't find anything from China apart from a modern translation since its naming as Pavo. Have looked in vain for any Sth African or Australian folklore Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Ridpaths web refs should perhaps indicate the work ("Ian Ridpath's Star Tales")
added but left out his name to reduce repetition Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • book titles not consistently title case; journal article title format case inconsistent as well
title cased now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • are author initials spaced (e.g. "Dupret, M. A.") or not (e.g. "Berens, E.M.)?
should be unspaced - tweaked spaced ones Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • page range format "635–642" vs. "231–32" (check throughout, other instances of inconsistent format as well)
should be last two digits only - tweaked offenders Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • niobium not capitalized; ref#24 is actually a footnote and should be converted to one; publisher location for Gray et al. (2009)?
location added- converted to footnote, niobium lowercased Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • no issue# or page range for Santos et al. (2010)?
Some astronomy articles have a strange format - pages added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • pub location for Mobberly (1999), Jenniskens (2006), and Levy (2008)
locations added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • what does "ESA" stand for in the Hubble website ref?
European Space Agency - unabbreviated now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • several times throughout the article it says a star has a magnitude of x; I'm unsure (in those instances where it is not stated explicitly) whether this refers to apparent magnitude, or apparent visual magnitude
these are the same thing - and both are often abbreviated to just "magnitude" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was confused by the fact that both apparent visual magnitude and apparent magnitude are linked in the text (in Notables features), but now I see one redirects to the other. Might want to fix that ... Sasata (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fixed redirect Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • refs #23 and #24 appear to be exactly the same, although they lead to different pages
cut and paste error - fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • should the SN of sn2005at be capitalized?
whoops, caps it is - fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • is it worthwhile to mention any of the following (all from here):
  • the constellation occupies 0.916% of the night sky
yes/added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • alpha Pavonis and its partner are in the Pleiades Group
this is tricky. I have not seen this mentioned elsewhere, and bagnall gets things wrong on occasion. Kaler doesn't mention it which is unusual...will omit and leave it as an item more specific for the Alpha Pavonis page to be verified at some point in the future. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • that the reason the HMNAO gave the constellation a name was for publication in The Air Almanac, which contained 57 bright stars that pilots could help to navigate with; there's also a bit more about the etymology of Pavonis not included in the article
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • that delta Pavonis is the most likely to have an Earth-type plant in the habitable zone
sorta outdated as nothing has turned up yet really....alot of the interest was before the discovery of large numbers of exoplanets. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • anything useful in this?
interesting...I am inclined to think "no" as I what they were doing was surveying a deep space field and trying to correlate the X ray and radio sources - could have been done anywhere in the sky really as you'd find similar things everywhere (i.e. the item of interest/study was correlation, not the fact that it was in Pavo) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • something wonky with ref #34; still have spaced initials in #13, #34, #37; publisher location for ref#4; publisher "self-published" (refs 1,2,3) or "self" (#46)?
got 'em all Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 27 September 2013 (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, 5 October 2013 (UTC) [40].[reply]

Sense and Sensibility (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ruby 2010/2013 02:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your eyes do not deceive you: yet another Jane Austen production, this time conceived by an American, written by its main star (an English woman), and directed by a native of Taiwan. This one, generally considered to be one of the top three best Austen adaptations of all time, has been a labor of love for over two years now. Currently a GA, I finally believe that it has reached the level of an FA. It has been helped along by a copy-edit and peer review, and I've also learned lessons from my last successful FA, Pride & Prejudice. Hopefully this one's not too far away – thank you all in advance for your comments! Ruby 2010/2013 02:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lobo[edit]

I noticed that this was clearly a very well-prepared candidate but has failed to get any comments, so here is a review. =) It's a great film, and this is a really great article. I'm finding it a pleasure to read through: the prose is lively and engaging, everything flows very well, it is thoroughly researched, and amazingly comprehensive (while not feeling bloated). To be honest I could probably support in its current state, but I've managed to come up with a pretty long list of comments anyway (maybe they could be moved to the talk page?). They are suggestions for improvement, but if you disagree with any of them just let me know. I also made a few copy-edits as I read through: feel free to revert any you aren't keen on.

  • Good point; I've added some more content from the themes section. Ruby 2010/2013 05:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • I've read it and it seems excellent, but I'll come back up give comments when I've read the whole article to check it gives appropriate coverage.
  • Update: Yep, excellent. My only comment is that there's not much mention of the "Themes and analysis" stuff (which I found pretty interesting). It could fit in quite easily with the start of para 3, ie "Thompson's screenplay made changes to the novel in an effort to make it more relatable to modern audiences..." and slip in a bit more there, along with the wealth stuff (you could probably phrase it better than that though, I just wrote it quickly without much thought). I won't insist on this though, the lead is a great introduction to the film and summary of the article.
Plot
  • Perfectly summarises the film.
Conception and adaptation
  • I don't think the brief plot summary is needed here (we've just had the plot, after all)
  • The quote from Doran on why she loves the book might be nice in a quotebox?
  • I see your point, but I'd like to avoid burdening the article with too many alternative images/quotebox, if possible (a quotebox there would mess with the alignment of Thompson's image below). Ruby 2010/2013 05:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The producer spent ten years looking for a suitable screenwriter" - This is confusing, because we've just been told that Doran suggested the film in 1989 (which doesn't give her ten years before the film comes out). I presume that she was already a producer and already making plans for the film before her appointment at Mirage, but it needs clarifying.
  • Yes, she had wanted to make the film long before her hire at Mirage. I tweaked the sentence to say Prior to her hire at Mirage, the producer had spent years looking for a suitable screenwriter... -- I took out the "ten" because I'm not sure of the exact timeline and don't want to get it wrong. Let me know if it still needs work. Ruby 2010/2013 23:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A week after Thompson and Doran wrapped production on Mirage's 1991 film Dead Again" - Would be nice to state outright that they were already working together, ie, "Thompson and Doran were already working together on Mirage's 1991 film Dead Again; a week after its completion, the producer selected Thompson..."
  • "her draft received some critical feedback for the way it presented Willoughby and Edward." - From who?
  • I predicted this would be an issue! It is from her production diaries; if I recall she was rather vague about who gave the feedback. I will see if I can get my hands on the book again and check what she said. Ruby 2010/2013 23:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Doran later recalled that people noted it didn't really "start until Willoughby arrives," with Edward side-lined as "backstory"." Slightly clumsy phrasing, and I'm not keen on putting such simple comments in quotations. Suggest paraphrasing ("backstory" can surely stay without quotes). Also, get rid of that contraction!
  • "Thompson believed that Austen was just as comprehensible in a different century, "You don't think people are still concerned with marriage, money, romance, finding a partner? Jane Austen is a genius who appeals to any generation." - Her quote could be cut; I think the first part of the sentence is sufficient.
  • "viewing her as too risky" - Is this because they didn't think she'd be a good enough writer? Just "too risky" is a bit vague.
  • I have added a bit about this (she was then pretty unknown and was a first-time screenwriter, both risky prospects). Ruby 2010/2013 03:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lee was one of the few who "knew where the jokes were".." Again, suggest paraphrasing (how about "..who recognised Austen's humour")
  • "she felt that Lee's involvement prevented the film from becoming "just some little English movie" that appealed only to "audiences in Devon" instead of to "the whole world."" - More over-quoting. The last parts could easilly be paraphrased.
  • "as he was unsure "where [his] position lay."" - Paraphrase.
  • "spent the next two months "revis[ing] the script constantly"" - Paraphrase.
  • Is there any way the section heading could also indicate at the hiring of Lee (since there's a fair bit of info on that here, which doesn't really come under either "conception" or "adaptation".) Or it could even have its own subsection?
Casting
  • It should be mentioned why Thompson was now a "big-deal movie star", (ie. because of the Oscar win and nominations).
  • "Thompson noted of Laurie's casting..." Worth mentioning that they had been friends for years?
  • I added in a tidbit about them knowing each for years. Ruby 2010/2013 03:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Thompson later noted that despite being a nineteen-year-old "with the prospect of such a huge role" before her" - Paraphrase.
  • I just removed the "huge role" part as extraneous. Ruby 2010/2013 03:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest splitting to a new paragraph when it starts talking about Winslet.
Constume design
  • Who is Linda Troost?
  • Personally I'm not sure what "fashion plates" are? If it's an obvious term and I'm just being a dunce then leave it, but it may be worth using a different term (or is there a suitable article we could link to?)
  • That was the term the source used and I've found an article about them, which is now wikilinked to in the S&S article. Good suggestion, as I'm sure many readers would also be unfamiliar with them (I know I was). Ruby 2010/2013
  • It might just be me, but I found the stuff about Brandon's wedding costume a bit unnecessary.
Filming
  • The caption of the Lee photo should probably be tweaked, since "Western film" could also refer to the genre! "..first film made outside of Asia", or something, would be better.
  • "After Willoughby publicly rejects Marianne, he returns to a more lavishly furnished room, a symbol of the wealth she has lost access to." - Not really sure of the relevance of this comment?
  • I've tweaked the sentence a bit; let me know if that helped or if you think it should still be scrapped. Ruby 2010/2013 05:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Locations
  • "where Winslet and Jones shot the first scene of the production together reading about Barton Cottage" - Bit clumsy; suggest something like (if I'm understanding it correctly) "..shot the first scene of the production: when their characters read about Barton Cottage."
  • "Thompson also experienced intense back pain on the final days of filming and was treated with acupuncture and Indocid." - Probably not notable enough to mention.
  • Agreed, removed (she discussed the substantial pain in a few pages of her production diaries, and I thought it was worth a mention, but in hindsight probably not). Ruby 2010/2013 05:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna take a break there - I'll try and finish up later today. --Lobo (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough comments! I read them briefly earlier today during some downtime and largely agree with them. Funnily enough, I was going to review your Julianne Moore article but ran out of time before I went on holiday for the weekend. I will respond to your comments and review your FAC, hopefully tomorrow. Ruby 2010/2013 03:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I really wanted to finish this today but I'm afraid I won't be able to. Sorry to leave it hanging, I'll try and make sure it's done tomorrow. Changes so far look good! --Lobo (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! I believe I have now replied to all of your suggestions. I have followed most of them, but there are a few I need to double check on (I don't have immediate access to Thompson's production diaries). Ruby 2010/2013 03:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay picking up where I left off...

Music
  • "..has been described as a "restricted compass ... of emotion" .." - Attribute the quote.
  • The comments from Lee on the songs - I'm guessing they are covered by the following reference, but I'd recommend duplicated the ref right after the quote, just so it's absolutely clear where it comes from.
Editing
  • "as the male characters spend much of the novel off-stage." - Off-stage is a bit of a strange way of putting it.
  • The first paragraph seems to be more about Thomson's adaptation process? This "problem" could perhaps be solved by renaming the section "Omissions and editing"?
Themes and analysis
  • The quote box should tell us who Devoney Looser is (ie, what her credentials are).
  • I have added that she's an Austen scholar (See here for her credentials)
  • "especially when contrasted with Laurie's Palmer." - It took me a minute to work out what "Laurie's Palmer" meant, which is why I've removed "Laurie".
  • "The character of Brandon also sustains alterations; Thompson's screenplay has his storyline directly mirroring Willoughby's..." - I'm guessing this was to help us understand why Marianne is able to fall in love with him? If so, that's worth mentioning outright.
  • Oops, missed this one. I've added something to this effect, which is sourced from Stovel (2011); it now says "The character of Brandon also sustains alterations; to gradually show viewers why Brandon is worthy of Marianne's love, Thompson's screenplay has his storyline directly mirroring Willoughby's..." Ruby 2010/2013 05:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marketing and release
  • "To gain the greatest benefit of the publicity surrounding Academy Award nominees, the film's release was timed to coincide with "Oscar season." Sense and Sensibility's release saw several brief increases both when the nominees were announced and during the time of the ceremony in late March.[122]" - Hmm this is all a bit problematic to me. Firstly, it should say "potential nominees", because the nominees aren't announced until late January. Secondly, it currently sounds like they released the film in Oscar season to benefit from the publicity afforded to other nominees (or potential nominees), whereas I'm sure they released it at that time to try and get some nominations themselves! And then they did get nominated, so its a bit strange not to mention that when talking about the increase in distribution. I do think you probably meant to communicate this already but it's not all that clear: basically, you want to say that they released the film in Oscar season to increase their chance at getting nominations (and because a lot of attention is paid to films in this time), and because they knew that if the film was still in cinemas when it was nominated (and when the ceremony took place), that would get them more viewers. It might also be worth mentioning that this is pretty standard procedure for Oscar-hunting films (just simply, ie, "In line with the typical marketing procedure for a film seeing award nominations...")
  • Hmmm... I see your point about the "potential" nominees and mentioning its nominations, and have edited the article accordingly. Concerning the timing of the release, they saw the film as a potential Oscar contender and planned its release accordingly. (pages 155 & 157 from Higson (2011) explain). Having inputted the first two changes, hopefully the article does a better job conveying this. :) Ruby 2010/2013 03:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
  • "..and it has landed on more than one hundred top-ten lists." This implies "top ten of all time" lists, whereas I'm sure the source is saying top-ten of the year (the whole paragraph is very much talking about 1995). I've tweaked it to say this.
  • Rotten Tomatoes didn't give it a "review score" of 98%, it's just saying that's how many reviews were positive. I've also clarified that.
Legacy
  • All good.

Phew, done! Despite this huge list of comments I am honestly very impressed with the article. Congrats Ruby, you should feel very pleased with yourself. :) --Lobo (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This deserves to be a featured article. One of my comments (under themes) has been missed (accidentally, I'm sure) and you may not have seen that I updated my "Lead" comments, but I'm still happy to support at this point. I do think it would be nice to add a little bit of the "analysis" content to the lead, since I found it interesting, but it's up to you. Also, it occurred to me that there isn't a "Home media" section. But I notice that there is one in your Pride & Prejudice FA, which makes me think there's probably reason this article doesn't have one? I won't make a hoo-haa about it since it's not essential information (as far as I'm concerned), but I just thought I'd mention it anyway. --Lobo (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for giving such a thorough review and for your support! I actually dislike home media sections and try to avoid writing them if possible, as I don't think they add much to a film article. If you like though, I can write up a quick paragraph (mainly that the VHS was released in 1996 and the DVD came out in 1999, with special features). Otherwise I think all of your other comments have been addressed. Ruby 2010/2013 05:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Sense_and_Sensibility_Thompson_dress.jpg: what is the copyright status of the costume design itself? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm... I'm not really sure (probably Columbia Pictures). If it's too much of an issue I can remove it (perhaps in favor of a screenshot depicting more of the characters, as I did in the Pride & Prejudice article?) Ruby 2010/2013 05:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the status is unclear and can't be clarified, that would probably be a safer route. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

This looks a well-constructed and nicely presented article, much in the style of the same nominator's featured Pride & Prejudice (2005 film). Unfortunately, I have some online access issues over the next few days, which means my review comments may be slow in coming. May I request that the delegates don't close this until I've had the chance to complete a review? Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Later: OK, I still have to look at the later sections, from "Music" onwards, but most of my comments are here. I have made minor changes to the text as I went along, rather than make this list longer. My original impression that this is a good-quality film article has been generally confirmed, and with only a small amount of work it will be ready for promotion. Here are my individual points to date:

  • General prose issue: over-use of "due to". I have fixed most of these.
  • I see that there are three "due to"s left; do you think I should tweak them further? Ruby 2010/2013 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lee approached filming from different perspectives than his cast and crew, resulting in culture shock before the actors grew to trust Lee's instincts." Isn't "culture shock" rather overstating the case? The cast and crew obviously had to adjust to Lee's approach, and some may have experienced difficulties with this, but "culture shock" is a pretty severe way of putting this. The cod psychology in the linked article is not helpful, either. All in all, I am not convinced that this issue of adjustment is important enough to be mentioned in the lead. I see in the main text this has been described as "slight cultural shock", which is more acceptable, and reinforces my point that this was not a big deal.
  • "Slight culture shock" is how Thompson described it in her production diaries and it seems important enough to leave in the article. I agree that it probably isn't needed for the lead, however. I've removed it. Ruby 2010/2013 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "instead of another..." is explained later, but is slightly distracting here.
  • I've edited it to She chose to adapt this particular Austen work because ... Ruby 2010/2013 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thompson spent five years writing and revising the screenplay..." – four years mentioned in the lead.
  • Thanks for catching that; there was a slight discrepancy in the sourcing that led me to change it from four to five, but I forgot the lead. Fixed now. Ruby 2010/2013 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some of the criticism, Doran later recalled, held that it did not really beginning until Willoughby's arrival". Something wrong here, probably "beginning → begin", but even that does not clarify what "it" is.
  • Changed to Some of the criticism, Doran later recalled, held that the story did not really begin until Willoughby's arrival, with Edward side-lined as backstory. Ruby 2010/2013 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what sense was Amanda Root "the fifth actor"? You have just named five in the previous sentence.
  • Have changed to "sixth"; Thompson mentioned that Lee hired five of the actors in her production diaries (without mentioning Root), and I learned in a later source that this grouping included her. My error for forgetting to adjust the number. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wise and Thompson met on the set and later married." Unnecessary trivia, unrelated to the subject, unencyclopedic – OK for a movie magazine article.
  • "Brandon's "flattering" costumes help appeal him to the audience". In the lead I changed this use of the "appeal" verb; you cannot "appeal" someone to an audience. You could say: "help his appeal to the audience".
  • Have changed it per your recommendation. Ruby 2010/2013 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think WP practice is that dollars are assumed to be US unless otherwise stated.
  • What is a "cross-over" hit?
  • Higson (2011) writes that "...what the American companies were increasingly interested in was those films that managed to cross over from the specialised or art-house market into the multiplexes." (Essentially, a film that appeals to multiple types of audiences; he gives Harry Potter as another example). I've hopefully clarified this a bit more in the article. Ruby 2010/2013 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency is needed in how numbers greater than 10 are represented. In the "Locations" section, for example, we have "fifty=eight", "sixty-five" and "50". There are similar inconsistencies elsewhere.
  • I believe I've edited all but those in the Marketing and Release section; what is the standard on large numbers like $721,341? Ruby 2010/2013 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • General point: Quote boxes can have more presentational impact with a lightly-coloured background (I'll do this for you if you like)
  • I've made them slightly yellow; how do they look now? Ruby 2010/2013 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back soon with the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for reviewing, Brian! Your comments were truly helpful; hopefully I've gotten them all. Ruby 2010/2013 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My further comments

Music
  • "Stifled" is not a musical term. I imagine that it is Doyle's own description of what he wrote, but it is unclear what he meant. Since a fuller description of the music follows, I would drop this term.
  • "Doyle has noted that the score..." People "note" things about other peoples' work, not about their own. Also, you have "They also noted" later in the paragraph. Perhaps "Doyle explains that..."
Omissions and editing
  • Maybe the section title should be inverted? "Editing and omissions" seems more logical, but it's a matter for you
Themes and analysis
  • The formulation "has been noted" invariably raises the question "by whom?"
  • I've now attributed this to Louise Flavin, a noted Austen scholar. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 04:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Audience members are meant to view self-restrained Elinor as the person in need of reform, rather than her impassioned sister." Whose opinion is being given here?
  • Also Flavin here; I've added a semicolon to make this a bit more clear. Ruby 2010/2013 04:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tracing its origin to the BBC's unsuccessful 1986 Austen adaptation Northanger Abbey..." The "it" in this sentence is presumably "fusion adaptation", but the sentence goes on to talk about the characteristics of Lee's production, which rather confuses the issue. To clarify the position I would rearrange the sentence: "Linda Troost discussed the "fusion adaptation" – a mixture of Hollywood style with the British heritage film genre, designed to appeal to a wide range of viewers – which originated with the BBC's unsuccessful 1986 Austen adaptation Northanger Abbey. Troost noted that..." etc
Marketing and release
  • "it opened in eleventh place" – eleventh place in what rankings?
  • I'm not sure what is unclear here; it opened in eleventh place in the box office (behind ten other films)? Perhaps I'm missing something? Ruby 2010/2013 04:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to specify that it opened in eleventh place in terms of box office takings. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've inputted your wording ("in terms of box office takings"). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 17:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pride and Prejudice to which you refer was a TV series. not a film. It was broadcast by the BBC in September/October 1995; it was not "released" as the text suggests. The wording should reflect this.
  • "Because the entire production cycle had consistently emphasised it as being "bigger" than a normal British period drama literary film, distributors avoided labelling it as 'just another English period film.'" Is it conceivable that distributors would, in any conceivable circumstances, have labelling their film in such dismissive terms? I suggest you look at this sentence again.
  • I'd prefer to see the Daily Mail described as a "populist newspaper" rather than a "media outlet".
  • "...a sum that was considered a commercial success". The sum reflected the success – it was not itself the success. Also, I don't like the "that was considered" formulation; why not "a sum that reflected the film's commercial success"?
Reception
  • "Walter conveys sour bitchiness..." As you haven't mentioned Harriet Walter since the "Casting" section long ago, I'd quite forgotten who "Walter" was. Suggest add a parenthetical [Harriet] into the quote.
Awards and nominations
  • The colon after "twelve nominations at the 49th British Academy Film Awards" is misplaced, since you then list only three of thse nominations. Replace colon with a comma followed by "including"
Legacy and influence
  • "Sense and Sensibility was the first English-language period adaptation of an Austen novel to appear in cinemas in over fifty years." Perhaps state what the previous one was?
  • "Between 1995 and 1996, six Austen adaptations were ultimately released onto film or television". There is no time "between" 1995 and 1996, and the word "ultimately" is superfluous. Thus: "In 1995 and 1996, six Austen adaptations were released onto film or television". However, I have some difficulty in identifying them all. There was an Emma film with Gwynneth Paltrow in 1996, and a TV Emma that same year. That makes five – unless you are counting Clueless, which is stretching it a bit!
  • Yes (alas), the source (Parrill) does include Clueless, in addition to the two productions of Emma (film and television), Persuasion, Sense and Sensibility, and Pride and Prejudice. Ruby 2010/2013 04:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further to that, you later say: "As the mid-1990s included four Austen adaptations..."
  • My mistake; I meant that four Austen novels had been adapted. I've edited this accordingly. Ruby 2010/2013 04:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's correct to say that "Davies also cast actors closer to the ages in the source material", or indeed to refer to "Davies' production". He was the screenwriter, not the producer or director.
  • True, but Davies has the most name recognition (and consequently was featured in more news articles about the production than the director (John Alexander) or the producer (Anne Pivcevic). I've removed the second and third mentions of Davies, however, and tried to make it a bit less about him. Ruby 2010/2013 04:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that is about it. I will end with one gripe about the "Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility" navbox at the foot of the article. What information does this give, relevant to the film, that is not included in the article? It gives the names of certain spin-off films and novels, but these are nothing whatever to do with this film. So what is the justification for keeping the box?

Sorry to end on a grumpy note. The article is in pretty good shape, and I am confident it will soon be promoted. Brianboulton (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think you were acting grumpy at all, merely very perceptive! :) About the navbox, I think it is useful for containing quick and easy links, especially for those unable or unwilling to read the full article. Of course, I'm not that attached to it and would be willing to remove it if you're set against it. Otherwise, I believe I have now addressed all of your concerns. Thanks very much (again) for reviewing! Ruby 2010/2013 04:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you remove the navbox it is 99 percent certain that someone will re-add it. I have removed one item from the template ("chaperone") – though some idiot will probably add that back, too. The box is a ragbag of links to do with the novel, some to do with the film. I can't see how it improves anyone's knowlege of the film, but it is hidden, so we may as well leave it. Good work in responding positively to all these points. Well worth an FA.
As I prophesied, someone has indeed added the chaperone back. Not worth bothering about, though. Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suppose some are attached to it. My (minor) objection to its addition would only be because the chaperone article is in such bad shape. Perhaps I'll make it a future project of mine... Ruby 2010/2013 05:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A fine article offering an excellent account of this important film. All review issues patiently and conscientiously resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that someone will eventually re-add the navbox, though it is better than it used to be (all of the novels and adaptations used to be on one central template, which was rather large and unwieldy).
Thanks very much for the support! The article is definitely better off due to your comments. Ruby 2010/2013 17:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Support Almost every part of this article is excellent, except for the "Themes and analysis" section. The article is well-written and well-organized and every other section is thorough and well-researched. I greatly enjoyed reading the article and learned much about the film. However, the "Themes and analysis" section needs some expansion. I would suggest subheaders such as "Money" or "Gender", for example. There is quite a bit of information earlier in the article about how Thompson tried to write about family dynamics and economics that should be in the "Themes" section. Also, much of the themes section is written from the perspective of what is or is not taken from the novel. The last paragraph of the section, which gets into the meat of the themes of the actual film, needs to be dramatically expanded. Many of those sentences would be hard for the average reader to understand and using a few more sources to flesh out these ideas would make this a far better article. I see no reason why, after this section has been revised, I would not support this article. Wadewitz (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for weighing in. I knew going in that there was a lot of literature analyzing this film, and I had to be selective about what I chose to include. I understand your concern however, and will get to bolstering up the section tomorrow. Ruby 2010/2013 23:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still adding in small tweaks, but how does it look now? I've moved some of the content from the "conception and adaptation" section, and have bolstered/added in some other views on the film's theme of class. The gender section is a bit smaller, but I'm wary of bloating it further, as the analysis section is already rather large. Thoughts? Ruby 2010/2013 05:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is much better. I think one way to improve it would be to remove the names of the books where the material was published as readers don't really care about that info. You might also think about renaming the section because it isn't all "Scholarly analysis" and also you could draw on some reviews to discuss the satire in the film, which would allow you to expand the gender section and address the style and tone of the film, two topics not really covered in much depth in the article. Wadewitz (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for reviewing and supporting. I've edited the section header and removed the names of the scholarly works, per your recommendations. I've also added a bit more on gender to the section, though oddly I've had difficulty finding much on Thompson's translation of Austen's sense of irony or the film's style. One would think this would be a prominent topic for scholars/writers. I'll try looking in a few more available sources. Ruby 2010/2013 05:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for delegates, this article currently has three supports but is in need of a source review. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 19:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Quadell[edit]

This is not a full review, but I will say that the lead appears fully correct, the images are used correctly, the article seems very thorough, and every important statement is sourced.

Source review
  • Some of the books in the Bibliography have page numbers specified, while others do not. (In any case, the exact pages for each reference are given in the references section.) Is there a reason some have pages and others don't?
  • I believe I've fixed up the bibliography for consistency. The edited books (with multiple authors) have the pages of their specific chapter; the books without page numbers simply means the author wrote everything in said book. Hopefully this is made a bit more clear in the article. Ruby 2010/2013 02:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay! That makes perfect sense. The bibliography is now consistent in this (but see one late addition, below). – Quadell (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the links to online versions of book text are appropriate and helpful. But both times that Pucci and Thompsons "Jane Austen and Co" is referenced (once for a chapter by Dobie and once for a chapter by Thompson), the link given is to the same less-than-helpful snippet view. Shouldn't the link, if given, be specific for the reference? The same is true for both listings for chapters of Arp et. al's "The Philosophy of Ang Lee."
  • I've done a complete overhaul of the URLs; they now either link to the cited chapter in an edited book or link to the main description page within Google Books. None of them lead to snippet reviews on my computer, so perhaps that is just yours? Ruby 2010/2013 02:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beautiful. It's exactly correct now. – Quadell (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecks I checked references 1, 13, 29, 87, 101, 129, 136, and 153. In every case, the statement was fully supported by the source, and in no case was there any hint of plagiarism. However reference 152 (Michael Dwyer in the Irish Times) is a dead link.
  • The Dwyer link is not showing up as dead in mine; it's possible that this is a Highbeam issue. I know they were having technical difficulties earlier today. Ruby 2010/2013 02:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I see it now too. It must have been "dead" for only a brief time yesterday. – Quadell (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Late addition: It looks to me like the page numbers are wrong for Pidduck's chapter of The Postcolonial Jane Austen. I'm seeing the chapter from page 123 to somewhere around 147.
  • You're absolutely right, good catch. Not sure what happened there but it's now been fixed to pp=123–146. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 17:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, everything looks good. – Quadell (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All source issues have been fixed. – Quadell (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks very much for reviewing, Quadell! Let me know if there are any other issues. Ruby 2010/2013 02:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. After carefully reviewing the entire article, I've decided to formally review it. I find it to be thorough, complete, and well-organized. The prose is very good, and the MOS is followed throughout. I see no reason it shouldn't be featured. – Quadell (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2013 (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 10:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC) [42].[reply]

Sea[edit]

Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap, Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flushed with victory in the "Core Competition", we are nominating this for featured article. Khazar did a thorough GA review during the course of which he made various suggestions for improving the article, most of which we have followed up. It is a long article, but then we have tried to make it as comprehensive as possible while at the same time providing links to other articles that cover in greater detail the topics we have included. We hope you enjoy reading it as much as we have enjoyed writing it! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Cwmhiraeth. 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, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearly there can be nobody better than Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth, winners of the Core Competition, to write about the sea. Anyway,

  • I'm not a fan of the section-name Overview; isn't the lead itself supposed to be the overview?
The section could be given a different heading. It contains matter that is fundamental to the article and unsuitable for inclusion in the lead which is meant to be a summary of the contents of the body of the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(chiming in) - the content in the section currently labelled overview would be better described by the word definition (ie. it is discussing what it is/defined) - in which case the better would be to slot para 1 below paras 2 and 3. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Should add I hate the term overview for precisely the problem noted above - i.e. the lead is the overview....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have adopted Casliber's suggestion and renamed and rearranged the section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, shouldn't the legal stuff in that section be its own 2-3 paragraph subsection under Humans?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find "sea level rise" in the See also: shouldn't the effects of global warming etc be discussed in this article itself (maybe next to Marine pollution?); I think it's important enough to mention in the lead.
I'm working on this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added a short section on changes in sea level. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The culture section has a strong Western bias (notwithstanding the occasional Japanese reference): instead of writing about individual works in different media, maybe you should do it culture-wise? "In the West, it was thought of this way; in Japan like this; in Africa like this etc...". It'd also serve to rein-in a somewhat unfocussed section (listing out so many Conrad books, for eg).

Having said that, it's great to have such vast and basic subjects at FAC. I wish you all the best.—indopug (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult, because we have access to Western sources rather than world sources. We could reduce the section and pare out some of the material which would improve the balance a bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment. No, no, for FAC, we need the fully global perspective. Indopug's idea is worth considering. Paring down 'western' stuff not the answer. It may take some work to make the cultural persepctive global, not West+Japan. I would particularly expect sources/research available for Middle-east, South and South-east Asia and Pacific (I don't know about the Americas or Africa). Regarding article as a whole: awesome effort. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps add something about the Sea Gypsies of South Asia. PumpkinSky talk 13:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could remove the "In culture" section completely as being unnecessary in an article on a geographical subject. Alternatively, I could rewrite the section in the style of this part of the article Land (including Sea Gypsies and Polynesians etc). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that "in culture" is exactly the best way to express it, but the cultural significance of the sea of course must be covered. Bearing in mind that land is only start class, the general approach there seems feasible and preferable to the current one in sea. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely do not remove it. My suggestion is to change the title to "Cultural significance" and add the sea gypsies, polynesians, and whatever else you can find (except Western and Japanese as you already have those). PumpkinSky talk 16:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another good one: Polynesian navigation PumpkinSky talk 17:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'm working on it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. We are working on your suggestions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now completely rewritten the Culture section and hope it meets with your approval. The Polynesians are already mentioned in the Navigation section earlier in the article. The Sea Gypsies seems not to have been a single ethnic group but a term applied to various maritime groups in southeastern Asia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two things...the exploitation section is only two sentences and has no refs. Is this getting expanded? yes, sea gypsies is more than one group, but I don't see how people living on the sea doesn't apply to a "humans and the sea" section. PumpkinSky talk 23:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now written a short section on the Sea Gypsies. With regard to the two sentences under "Exploitation", they were just by way of introduction to the several sections that followed (Trade, Food production, Leisure etc.) - all ways in which the sea is used. I have abolished this introduction entirely. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice. I fixed a date format and did two wiki links. PumpkinSky talk 14:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really cheering to see an article like this as a FAC - great work! Minor comments follow:

  • Some bits need alternative metric/imperial stats added, e.g. "154 million tonnes", "300 metres offshore" etc.
Done, I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my screen, the number of images looks excessive - there's a fair bit of overlap, with text being pushed around etc. "In art" and "Extractive industries" in particular seem to have a lot of pictures.
Some removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sixty percent", but later "87 percent" - worth being consistent in numbers/text
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scientific oceanography " - it's defined in the lead, but worth defining in the main text when its first introduced.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be good to get at least a passing reference to ocean modelling, Geophysical fluid dynamics etc. in connection to the sea - a big field of study, and key to how we understand many of the phenomena mentioned in the article. "Ocean Circulation and Climate: Observing and Modelling the Global Ocean" might be a starting point for some of the literature.
  • Unhelpfully, I can't give you a cite, but I'm pretty sure that the ability of the sea to absorb carbon dioxide forms an important buffer to global warming (if it didn't absorb CO2, the atmospheric % would be higher than it otherwise is). Don't know if anyone else can help you with a cite! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I have dealt with the easy ones and will work on the others. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added modelling links as suggested, with a brief discussion and references. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PSky[edit]

I always enjoy seeing work from Cwmhiraeth because it's always top-notch. Chap, I'm not familiar with your work but this article certainly gives a good impression. Excellent submission, guys!
    • Image check
File:Marine debris on Hawaiian coast.jpg needs a year
File:Buzo.jpg, English translation please. And that description needs a language parameter, it looks like Spanish to me.
File:Deutsche Fischfang Union Schiff Kiel 01.jpg same deal as Buzo, but it's German.
File:Euboea island.jpg same deal, I think that's Spanish again.
File:Thermohaline Circulation 2.png needs date and pls fix the numbered url
File:Propagation du tsunami en profondeur variable.gif English please, it's French
File:Putgarten, Kap Arkona (2011-05-21) 3.JPG English pls, it's German.
I've done these with the exception of "Deutsche Fischfang Union Schiff Kiel", the description of which I can't understand. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • that tanker ship is clearly not loaded with oil! (just a comment, nothing to fix)
    • Other comments "Recreational diving is limited to depths of 100 feet (30 m), beyond which nitrogen narcosis may occur." I was an advanced scuba instructor. This is not totally true. Recreational divers are supposed to stay above that depth (but of course people, including me, break the rule all the time, haha), but narcosis can and does occur above that depth. It is true that the deeper you go, the more likely it is to occur. That statement needs tweaked. If you need it, I can help with the images that have German descriptions. PumpkinSky talk 11:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have rephrased that bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did that one German one. I'm just waiting on the outcome of the culture section now. PumpkinSky talk 13:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I support this now and think it should stayed named Sea, with whatever top notes may be needed. Love the gypsie section. PumpkinSky talk 14:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your encouragement and support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Hamiltonstone[edit]

My comments are currently confined to the "in culture" section, about which I would first say: absolutely marvellous re-write of the 'in culture' section, Cwmhiraeth - a quantum leap forward and very well done. I have a few concerns with it at present:

  • I think the gigantic leap from ancient Greek to modern European literature, via only a single reference to Basho, is too much of a stretch. Can we find nothing written of notable relevance in that that yawning chasm of over one and a half millenia?
I have plugged the gap a bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I lost that one :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel the following sentence is weak, describing something as notable and being somehow about the sea, without really telling us anything about what it says about the sea: "A well-known American maritime work is Herman Melville's 1851 novel Moby-Dick, describing the adventures of the sailor Ishmael, the whaleship Pequod, its Captain Ahab, and the white sperm whale, Moby Dick" I would be inclined to omit it, unless we can find a good line from a Melville scholar about the work's significance.
Rephrased and comment added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should not be confining the treatment of music to the classical in the final section, but to music generally. To elaborate: what about some reference to folk and traditional music portraying the sea's power and the perils of ocean travel, such as in the child ballad The Mermaid? Or the development by sailors of a distinctive genre, the sea shanty, the lyrics of which would often relate to life on the ocean?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need to find a really powerful ending, to ensure that the article is rounded out as brilliant prose. My first impulse was to find a brooding and profound reflection in a work reviewing Peter Grimes or the Interludes, which are a very appropriate work with which to conclude the WP article, because they present the sea in a range of moods. However, neither of my books on Britten (Carpenter biography; Whittall's The Music of Britten and Tippett) quite had the right thing. Maybe someone else can come up with something? Sorry not to be of more use on that front... hamiltonstone (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a "really powerful" ending written in "brilliant prose" is not essential for a Featured Article. Snowman (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Snowman. The FA criteria do not say anything about a "powerful ending" or direct one toward how to present content--it just asks that the article is well-written and comprehensive, which this one is. If you want powerful endings...what do you want to cry, to feel elevated...seriously, look into screenwriting or fiction. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, briliant prose is what is required: "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard", and a professionally written article about a major subject like this would not just end at whatever the last point happens to be, without attempting to give the reader a sense of conclusion. The makings of it are perfect: the final subsection gives an excellent opportunity to do this, it is just a matter of finding the right material. If I can uncover anything, I will give it a go, but in my view it definitely needs the appropriately crafted conclusion. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The FAC process suffers from exactly this kind of attitude--reviewers adding their subjective longings to the an already clear criteria. If you could point to one place (other than your own personal sense or opinion) that says "must have a really powerful ending", I'd agree with you...but because you can't, I don't. Ridiculous. Give it a go for all its worth, but in the end, don't attempt to apply a rule that doesn't exist just because you "feel" it should.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't get your point. That it should include "engaging, even brilliant" prose, except at the end? Your argument appears to be that because the guidelines do not say "must have a really powerful ending", therefore it is invalid to suggest that in an article of this nature, a powerful ending is what one would expect "engaging, even brilliant prise of a professional standard" to look like. That seems a peculiarly narrow view of the FAC guidelines, and their intention. I'm happy with the suggestion I made to improve the article, and still believe the suggestion is consistent with the FAC guidelines. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have made an attempt at shaping a conclusion to the section. Will see if others are comfortable with it. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the recently added quote from Carson's 1951 book is out-of-date and unsuitable for the end of the article. The quote might have been fine in its time. I presume that the book is copyrighted and that a quote from it should not be used in the article. Snowman (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its date is not particularly relevant - it is in the 'culture' section, not the science. Inclusion reflects the preeminent status of Carson's work and the influence of her ideas. Copyright is not relevant to quoting in this way. It is not a problem. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm disappointed to see what has happened to the "In culture" section, which had previously been very successfully rewritten, i thought. There is now an undue weight problem in the article, in which each of the sections "power generation" and "extractive industries" is longer than the entire section on culture. The level of detail in power generation, in contrast to the almost meaningless superficial consideration of culture, is completely untenable. I'm happy to have a go at editing down the energy section if noms want, but the culture section needs to be at least partly resurrected, regardless of the issue about overall article length (which personally i hadn't seen as much of an issue given the topic). hamiltonstone (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Culture section was hived off in an effort to reduce the total length of the article which was perceived as being too large. We will expand it a bit to address your concerns without bringing it back to anything like its previous length. If you would like to pare down the "power generation" and "extractive industries" sections a bit to help restore balance, that would be most helpful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The culture section is only a click away. The topic has its own page now. Editors might like to work on the new article at "Sea in culture" without worrying about how it fits into a longer article. I think that the split is for the good of the Wikipaedia. See WP:TOOBIG for objective information about article size. WP:Splitting is sometimes necessary. Snowman (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I think that it would be wise to discuss removal of referenced facts or text from any sections prior to any cutting, because such modifications may be controversial. Snowman (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lower down this review page, I started a discussion, which you may not have noticed, about the Rime of the Ancient Mariner. Do you think that it should be included in the new summary of the sea in culture? It is the most famous work about the sea that I know; however, my background is science and not English literature. Snowman (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no citation at the end of the sentence "Over most of geologic time, the sea level has been higher than it is today. Only at the Permian-Triassic boundary, around 250 million years ago, was the long-term sea level lower than it is now." I have read the abstract of the cite for the following sentence (an article from Science - i do not have full text access), and it refers only to the Cretaceous period, so it looks like we dont' have a reference for the claims in that first sentence. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed the second sentence, and added a citation for the first one. Sea level has been higher than it is now for part of the Tertiary, part of the Jurassic and a part of the Permian.Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Quadell[edit]

I really like this article, and I'd love for a general topic like this to be featured. But there is a difficult conceptual problem that I'm not sure how to fix. A word like "sea" can mean different things. This article generally uses the definition as given in the lede, that "The sea is the connected body of salt water that covers over 70 percent of the Earth's surface." I'll call that the holistic definition of the word Sea. It is also common for a "sea" to mean a specific body of water, and I'll call this the reductionist definition of Sea. The "Definition" section of this article admirably describes the reductionist definition as well, but the rest of the article assumes the holistic definition when discussing all other aspects of the topic.

The trouble is, nearly every other article on Wikipedia makes the opposite assumption. Sea (disambiguation) refers to Sea by calling it "a large body of water", referring to only the reductionist definition. The Ocean article claims "The word 'sea' is often used interchangeably with 'ocean' but, strictly speaking, a sea is a body of saline water (possibly a division of the World Ocean) partly or fully enclosed by land." (It references Princeton's WordNet Search for support when claiming this.) The World Ocean article seems to describe the same subject that this Sea article covers, but it links to sea only when mentioning a particular sea. Both Template:Regions of the world and Template:List of seas link to the Sea article under the assumption that it will cover the reductionist definition. A brief perusal through Special:WhatLinksHere/Sea leads me to believe that 90% of the time a reader gets to the Sea article through a wikilink, she will expect to see an article primarily about the various individual seas, and not about the world ocean. This is a problem.

But I am not suggesting that this article be rewritten to refer to individual seas! We have List of seas for that. I also think that "the sea" may well be the most common way of referring to the World Ocean in English, with "the ocean" being the other major contender. So we have an organization problem that encompasses multiple articles. How should this be organized? What should be the main article that has information about the totality of connected saltwater on Earth? If Sea is that article, then should Ocean simply be a redirect to Sea? If not, what separate information should the Ocean article cover? Should World Ocean just be a redirect here? There doesn't seem to be a consensus about any of this, since these articles all duplicate much of the same information and claim different things when they link to each other. And without some consensus regarding these issues, I can't be confident that the organization suggested here is correct and deserves to be featured.

I'm sure that Sea is by far the best article among the three. I'd love to find some resolution to this, and I'm open to suggestions from anyone. – Quadell (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I agree that the matter you mention is a problem and it has been discussed elsewhere since we started expanding this article, without resolution. I believe the problem boils down to the difference between American and British English. In the United Kingdom we talk of "going to the sea", "swimming in the sea" or "crossing the sea" and would only use the term "crossing the ocean" for a trans-Atlantic or similar journey. The difference is nicely illustrated by the captions to an image in the Ocean article which reads "Waves on an ocean coast" and one in the Sea article which reads "Coastal sea waves in the Gulf of Santa Catalina". The present article "Ocean" is mostly about the 5 oceans of the world and about extra-terrestrial oceans and there is in fact little overlap with our article Sea. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with this reading. 'The sea' is essentially equivalent not to 'Ocean' but to the far more specialized term 'World ocean'. We Brits use 'ocean' only with a name, e.g. The Atlantic (ocean). The opposite overlap, with List of seas, is as Cwmhiraeth says already handled. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine if the article at Georgia were about the country, with a small section mentioning the U.S. state... but 90% of links to Georgia were clearly referencing the state. That would be a problem. If Georgia were an FAC, that would at the very least indicate future stability concerns, along with other concerns. Or imagine an FAC of football, where the article was about association football, but where 90% of links clearly indicated the reader would expect an article on American gridiron (and those articles typically linked to a separate, competing soccer article about association football). I think that would be a legitimate concern in a FAC. In the cases of Georgia and football, a solution has been ironed out through consensus and disambiguation, and Wikipedia articles are usually predictable in how they link to those articles. That hasn't happened here, and I'm unwilling to support this FAC until the issue is resolved. I'm truly sorry; the article is very good, and I'd like to see it featured. I just can't ignore 90% of inbound wikilinks. – Quadell (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this case is analogous to either of those. "The Sea: is more of a collective term and so integrally related to any smaller subsets thereof. I think the interrelation is such that the topic crossover can be discussed as a whole. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am not currently opposing (nor supporting) this FAC. I do believe the questions regarding subject and scope are important and should be dealt with... but I honestly don't whether they are problems with this article or with other related articles, so I can't tell if it's a legitimate reason to oppose. Whether this makes it to FA status or not, I hope we achieve some sort of consistency between what "sea" means in articles that link here, and what "sea" means in this article. – Quadell (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about we move Sea to The sea, redirect World Ocean to The sea, and make the article Sea either about the small body of water or a disambiguation page? Using "the" in a title is common: See The Crown, The Holocaust, etc. - Ypnypn (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with that course of action. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Hmm... it sounds like a good idea to me. Would anyone object to such a change? – Quadell (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that solution sounds promising. I favour Sea not being just a disambig, but being about the small body of water - certainly that is what i was expecting to read about, when i saw this at FAC and clicked through. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe sea can redirect to List of seas. LittleJerry (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like Ypnypn's and LittleJerry's suggestions. I'd also suggest that Ocean#Earth's global ocean should also be merged into the current article/The sea, which has basically already been done with the exception of two sections, Ocean#Divisions and Ocean#Zones and depths. I think an overview on the sea should definitely cover those two topics. One last minor note: the lead should mention that the phrases "the sea" and "the ocean" are synonymous in the context of this article.
It's fantastic to see an article of such importance here—carry on! Cobblet (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have altered the lead as you suggest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, if you check out the article talk page, you'll notice I brought up this definitional issue involving "sea", "the sea", "ocean", and "world ocean"... And was ignored. Can't help but grumble a tad to see the suggestion accepted with open arms when by someone else. *sigh* At least the problem is finally being given the attention it deserves --Coin945 (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I quote: "Thanks for the good wishes, but I really don't think that'd be a good idea. Generally the article ("The" or "A") is only used in titles of books and films (like "The Cruel Sea"), and never in articles on normal topics. So I expect if we tried it, it would get reverted. Your view of "Sea" does seem very close to what I'd think of as "List of seas", however, and I'd be happy to support you if you'd like to go in that direction. Chiswick Chap (talk) 6:19 pm, 24 April 2013, Wednesday (4 months, 11 days ago) (UTC+8)"--Coin945 (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal So that this FAC can move on, I would like to propose that the article be renamed "The sea" and that the page "Sea" become a disambiguation page. I would then propose that any further discussions on the name of the article and the merging of other articles into it could take place on the talk page of the article.
Adopting this proposal would enable this FAC discussion to focus on the merits and faults of the article rather than its name. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Chiswick in that we don't normally put articles in front of article names unless it's a title. Is there such an instance, such as "The air"? To me this whole discussion over "Sea" vs "The sea" is extremely UNDUE and it has stymied the FAC. I think the article should remain named [{Sea]] with hatnotes to other artice(s) as needed. On another note, no one ever responded to my past post of 22 Aug. PumpkinSky talk 10:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your view. I have responded to the previous post now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the heading "Sea" is fine for the Wiki article. OED has "sea", but does not have "the sea" as a page heading for definitions, but it lists examples of the use of "the sea". Curiously, The sea did not exist on the Wiki, so I have just created a redirect from "The sea" to "Sea". Note that The Sea (different capitalisation) is a dab. I have amended the signpost headers. Snowman (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the "Sea" article has 2000 hits per day. It is obvious that "Sea" should be a primary topic. No changes in the name of this article are needed. Snowman (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Snowman. I did not want to adopt the proposal I made and agree with what you say. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is ambiguity to what the name refers to, maybe the alternate definition should be briefly mentioned in the intro as well? FunkMonk (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have rather belatedly done this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked to comment on possible problems for disambiguation or navigation that might result from changing the current redirects. Currently, World ocean and (I gather, thanks to Snowman) The sea redirect to Sea. As far as I can see, changing which of those three names actually holds the content would have little effect on navigation. By the way, a quick scan of a small, arbitrary set of pages linking to Sea suggests that most of the those links do intend to refer to this super-body of water. As was suggested above, The Sea is the name of several works of art, and The Sea (with capital S) disambiguates them. My personal opinion is that 'Sea' is an appropriate title, and that 'Sea', 'The sea', and 'World ocean' should each point to the same content via redirects. Cnilep (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done *Be consistent in how you format web citations - for example, is the website name italicized or not?

  • Compare FNs 2 and 3 and 24 - why the different approach?
  • What makes about.com a high-quality reliable source?
  • Book citations almost always need page numbers and publishers
  • Use a consistent date format
  • Why do some books cited multiple times use short citations while others don't?
  • Compare FNs 19 and 58
  • FN60: formatting
  • FN89: missing italics
  • Be consistent in how you treat sources with no named author
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books; if you do, you'll need to be more specific than "United States"
  • What makes this a high-quality RS?

Stopping and oppose for now - sorry guys, but there's a significant amount of cleaning up needed wrt citations/sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nikkimaria. I will work to resolve the points you raise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree with Nikkimaria that a fair number of the citations were not up to scratch. I have now finished going through all of them and hope that the anomalies are gone. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the amount of changes that've been done, restarting this...

  • Publications like National Geographic and Nature should be italicized
  • Compare FNs 18 and 31
  • Foreign-language sources (ex FN41) should be identified as such
  • Use a consistent date format - compare for example FNs 42 and 43
  • Compare FNs 54 and 69 and 94
  • FN74: pages?
  • FN90: should specify DC
  • FN95: italicization is backwards
  • What makes Military.com a high-quality reliable source?
  • FN124: ISBN?
  • FN145: don't italicize quotations
  • FN147: page(s)?
  • FN170: any reason to not just cite the Bible directly?
  • FN172: formatting
  • FN173: what kind of source is this?
  • I'm a bit concerned about your use of primary sources in some cases. For example, you cite "A well-known American maritime work is Herman Melville's 1851 novel Moby-Dick" to Moby-Dick - that citation confirms that a work by that title from that year exists, but not that it's a "well-known American maritime work". Nikkimaria (talk) 05:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nikkimaria. I will work through these starting at the end in case the reference numbers alter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chiswick Chap and I have now dealt with all these points, including replacing the references that you questioned with better sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Snowmanradio[edit]

  • Where did the water in the sea come from? Snowman (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
added, ref Stow. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But "water from volcanoes" does not explain why there is so much water on the Earth. I am puzzled by your recent addition about volcanoes. Possible omission; modern ideas that vast amounts of water on Earth came to the Earth on colliding comets; see Comets Created Earth's Oceans, Study Concludes. I asked for "water from Comets" in this articles Good Article review, and I assumed that the main editors of this article had read it. There are probably better sources for the article. This is well known in the UK, because it has been in a BBC TV documentary. Snowman (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
added comet source, ref Nature. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Possible mission; something about how long ago comet bombardment happened. Snowman (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The age of the water is clearly ancient but in dispute, see Water on Earth and Moon May Have Same Source. Either when earth was 100m years old, or later. Perhaps matter for another article than this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How unusual is it for a planet to have a sea? Snowman (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
added Earth alone with surface water in solar system, other planets may have water, refs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
label added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am interested to see dream symbolism is included. However; "collective unconscious" appears in the introduction and nowhere else in the article. Please provide text in the main text and verification in a source. Snowman (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Dreams by Jung page 122 does say that the sea is a symbol of the collective unconscious. Possible omission; the sea can also be a symbol of the (personal) unconscious; see Dreams by Jung, pages 192, 230, and 276, which refer to the sea as the (personal) unconscious. My version of the book is published by Ark paperbacks and so the page numbers may not be the same as the book cited in the article. Snowman (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
added personal unconscious, using Ark edition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
replaced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about using the the permille (‰) symbol? Snowman (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, why not - done. (introduced it on first usage). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Snowmanradio. I will work on these points. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The amount of oxygen found in seawater depends primarily on the plants growing in it." Possible omission: Oxygen dissolved in water is dependant on temperature (school chemistry); see engineeringtoolbox.com and paper in Nature. Snowman (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
added warming effect, ref Nature, thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omission; Personal transport (not holiday cruises which is included). People getting from A to B, particularly on ships prior to popular air-travel. Snowman (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cwmhiraeth has added a new section on this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omission; some of the constituents of sea water are included in the text. I wonder if a table of constituents (possibly with ranges of concentrations) would enable inclusion of more constituents. The "Seawater" section is long and there is plenty of room for a table. Snowman (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping that more constituents would be added to the table? The article says "... bromides and other salts." Snowman (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok, added some more. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem: "This renewable energy, derived ultimately from the flow of energy from the sun." Tidal energy arises mainly from the relative motion of the Earth and Moon and (article says tidal energy is from the energy of the Sun). Is tidal energy renewable? Tidal energy is from the motion of the Earth and Sun and tidal energy has contributed to the slowing of the Earth's rotation and this energy is not renewed. Tidal energy can be called "green" energy. Snowman (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed sun clause, said 'green'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the energy could be called sustainable energy, but probably not renewable energy. Fine as it is now using 'green'. Snowman (talk)
  • Problem: "The sea offers a very large supply of kinetic energy which is carried by ocean waves, tides, salinity differences, and ocean temperature differences.". Seawater is higher on one side of a tidal barrier and this difference is exploited to force seawater through turbines to produce energy. I think that this exploits potential energy and not kinetic energy. In any event the flow of seawater on both sides of a complete sea barrier would be halted and so the kinetic energy of the flow of moving water on either side of the barrier is essentially zero. In another type of energy production, I think that kinetic energy can be extracted from turbines fixed to the seabed in fast flowing tidal seawater without using a sea barrier. Also, salinity differences and temperature differences are not conventionally classed at kinetic energy, as far as I am aware. Temperature relates to speed of atoms or molecules and associated energy is usually called heat energy. Snowman (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Removed 'kinetic'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Moon is 27 million times smaller than the Sun, ...". Does this refer to the masses of the Sun and Moon? Snowman (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Edited sentence.
  • Problem; "This means that its gravitational pull at the Earth's surface is more than twice as great as that of the Sun."
F= Gx(M1xEarth's_mass/rxr), enter numbers in separate equations for Moon and Sun and divide F for moon and F fur Sun to get;
(Mass of Moon/250,000x250,000) / (Mass of Sun/93,000,000x93,000,000) leads to
(1/62,500,000,000) / (27,000,000/8,649,000,000,000,000) leads to
(1/62,500) / (27/8,649) leads to
8,649/(62,500x27) leads to 0.005125 or about 1/200. Are my calculations correct?
This means that the Moon's gravitational pull on the Earth's surface is about 1/200 as strong as the Sun's gravitational pull on the Earth's surface. I think that the effect on gravity of the Moon and the Sun on tides is more to do with gravitational gradients, the differences in the pull of gravity on each side of the Earth by the Moon or the Sun (please do not quote this without a RS). A small object would rotate around the Sun in orbit in a state of "weightlessness", this might help thinking of a large object in orbit around the Sun and tides. Snowman (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have removed what looks like nonsense about gravity from the article. Snowman (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just found something at Tidal Forces and their Effects in the Solar System. As can be expected, it confirms that gravitational force is proportional to the inverse square. It uses a the term "tidal force" which is proportional to the inverse cube of the distance between the relevant solar system objects. The article should have been referring to "tidal force" (inverse cube) and not "gravitational pull" (inverse square) when saying that the influence of the Moon on tides is about 2.2 times that of the Sun. I am wondering how much detail should be included in the article. It seems that there some misconceptions about tides are easy to find, so I might be minded to include more appropriate detail, since tides are fundamental to the sea. The inverse cube relationship for tidal force could be something interesting to include. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added a brief explanation of the tidal force with footnote and Admiralty Manual reference. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I think that is enough and will be something interesting for readers to think about. Snowman (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The difference in height between the high tide and low tide is known as the tidal range." Possible omission: "tidal amplitude" as an alternative name for tidal range. I am not sure if it is included in the source provided. Snowman (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added a footnote with reference. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omission: the water cycle, perhaps with a brief mention for "cloud forests" or what ever they are called, places that have little rain and where the plants and creatures survive mainly on the water carried in sea mists. Snowman (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We considered this, and did not include it as the sea, like the atmosphere, mountains, soil, and rivers, plays a part in the water cycle but does not 'own' it. Atmosphere for instance does not mention it either. Perhaps it's just outside this article's scope. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that water cycle is well within the scope of this article on sea. I had a quick look at what links here for the "Water cycle" article and found that a lot of articles included it. River includes the water cycle referring to it a hydrological cycle, a redirect to "water cycle". Sea level also includes it wikilinking one of the redirects to water cycle. Snowman (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have added a section on the sea's part in the water/hydrological cycle. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have added a section on this (at end of In culture). Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the article too long? See WP:TOOBIG, which says "> 60 kB - Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)". The "Culture section" is a target to be split off leaving a very short culture section here. Current article size as shown by "Page size" facility;
File size: 465 kB
Prose size (including all HTML code): 120 kB
References (including all HTML code): 15 kB
Wiki text: 137 kB
Prose size (text only): 72 kB (12127 words) "readable prose size"
References (text only): 1103 B. Snowman (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lets see what others think about the size of the article. There are other featured articles that are just as big, and every time you write "Possible omission", it gets larger ;-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page as it is is well rounded and a great read. I am having a great deal of trouble thinking what we'd cut if we had to cut anything. If we really really had to trim the article, the only section that I feel is a little specific is the Passenger transport section's focus on transatlantic liners, but removing or trimming that would make it very stubby, and it does help portray well how people have travelled on the sea. I think I am happy with content as is. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask if User Casliber's opinion was sought, because it was felt that he may calculate its length in a completely different way and has been tolerant of a long articles before; see User Cwmhiraeth's comment. I am sure that User Casliber gave his honest opinion and I think that he has advanced the discussion. Nevertheless, May I ask if a user's established opinion was canvassed and and ask if canvassing has introduced a bias to the discussion here. Snowman (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed ask Casliber for his opinion because I respect his judgement and great FA experience and knew he would give an unbiased view. In the same way, I asked Nikkimaria if she could do a source review because I knew she was a hard taskmaster and would do a thorough job. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would be better to follow the guideline on size since this article would be easy to subdivide two articles. The guideline provides explanations, which I do not need to reiterate here. A more drastic solution could be to split off most of "Humans and the sea" leaving a summary of it in the article. This would divide the article roughly in half. A lot of the sections have an a main article somewhere else on the Wiki and perhaps this huge section could follow this pattern. Snowman (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having created this article and tried to make it as balanced as possible, I am not keen to lop off any of its limbs. However, if there was a consensus opinion that the article was too long and part needed to go, I would be prepared to explore how that could best be done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Article size is a guideline and it indicates a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow. Wikipedia:Splitting is a information page. Both are based on a communal consensus. Actually, the split article ("Humans and the sea") could be quite good. The current article will take an average person one hour to read and this is longer than concentration span (according to Wikipedia:Article size). The "Humans and the sea" section looks like a mixture of all sorts of things added in that have a connection with the sea. To use anthropological terms, I do not see it as "cutting of a limb", I see it as getting rid of fat tissue. Snowman (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While Article size might be a guideline, at 133K this article is shorter than the FA I worked on, Alcohol laws of New Jersey, which is 153K. I disagree with your insistence upon splitting.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the alcohol laws article is 58 kB (9613 words) of readable prose size (this excludes mark-up code, which is not seen on the rendered page). After splitting the culture section, "Sea" is currently 63 kB (10635 words). I am happy to go with the flow using the current article organization (with the reduced culture section) to see what happens. Snowman (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article size of "Sea" is now 68 kB (11417 words) of readable prose size. There is plenty of space on the Wiki and I think that this article can easily be split. Please do not let the long article size jeopardise writing styles. Snowman (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: as suggested at WP:PROSPLIT, I have started a discussion on Talk:Sea about the possibility of splitting the article. Snowman (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The heading "Food production" does not seem right for a section that includes hunting wild animals (ie fishing and whaling). I have been trying to think of a better title or to divide the section into two sections each with suitable headings. Snowman (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed 'Production'. Perhaps that's better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The heading "Primary producers" : Jargon. Snowman (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we can try 'Plants', though in modern terms it doesn't really cover the microscopic organisms that photosynthesize. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see what it means now, so I have put "Photosynthetic organisms". Snowman (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adabow below has a similar issue with 'Plants'. I suggest we go for 'Producers' (plants, algae etc) and 'Consumers' (animals, detritivores etc). It's accurate and not overly technical. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not resolved. I see what you mean, but I have never heard of those words used before like that. I think that "produces" and "consumers" is jargon also. I think that these headings should be more easy to understand. Snowman (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. We could say 'Autotrophs' and 'Heterotrophs' but I suspect that they would not suit; we could say 'Animals and other consumers', 'Plants and other producers', a bit klunky and doesn't avoid the terms; we can use 'Plants' and 'Animals', accepting they're not perfect for the sake of simplicity. There aren't any totally everyday terms that perfectly correspond with producer and consumer. Which would you prefer? WP articles commonly use technical terms, with wikilinks to explain them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Plants, algae and many bacteria"? "Animals, fungi and many bacteria"? Snowman (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say we need something snappier, really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the section headings to "Algae and plants" and "Animals and other marine life" which is simple English and I think covers the contents of the section adequately. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without implying corroboration, that looks more suitable to me.. Snowman (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omission: I think a section is needed to cover the geography of the sea. This would included some details of borders of the oceans and other details of the Oceans. Snowman (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Geography section added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that something has been added, but it is not what I meant. Some of what has been added probably belongs in the history section. Perhaps, I should re-phrase the problem more clearly. The article does not have the "anatomy" of the oceans, the names of the oceans, where the oceans are, where the deep places and shallow places are, and perhaps where the frozen places are, and so on. Labelled map (or maps) of the world might help to show the location of the various oceans and the where deep trenches are and so on. The location of some of the bigger seas could also be added, but I would at least expect the article to have a labelled map of the oceans and their key features. As far as I am aware "Geography" is an earth science, which is one of the physical sciences, so I have re-organised the headings. Snowman (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you are suggesting is adequately covered in the article Ocean but we could look for a suitable map to include here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A big proportion of what is in this article is covered in other Wiki articles. The main questions are; Is it in the scope of this article on sea?, How much detail is needed here?, How is information organised across the relevant articles on the Wikipedia?. Snowman (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Basically a top-level, key subject article like this is an overview of many other articles, and tries to present a readable introduction to the subject from which the reader will move on to more detailed pages. This means there are bound to be overlaps and in fact there should be. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
added sentence, wl, ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The addition is; "A regular pattern of waves, swell, once created, can travel right across an ocean." I do not understand this. What is a swell? A regular pattern of waves could be almost anything. Snowman (talk) 10:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merged mentions of swell, added quote to ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem; Much of the section on navigation is about exploration. Snowman (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
added 'and exploration'; it seems to form a coherent history section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omission: The navigation does not mention longitude nor the marine chronometer nor other technical advances in shipping, maps, diving, or measuring sea depth. Snowman (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added information on navigation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omission: exploration of the sea depths. Snowman (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is mentioned briefly near the end of the "Animals and other marine life" section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is not much about the history of Deep-sea exploration there. Snowman (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omission: submarines from the warfare section. Snowman (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible balance problem: Sea Gypsies are included but not Eskimos, who are populations that also live a lifestyle based on the sea (albeit frozen sea). Snowman (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Inuit's hunting is now mentioned (next item). Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible balance problem: Marsh samphire is included as a food but seals as food for Eskimos is omitted. Snowman (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added sentence on indigenous hunting of seals and whales by Inuit, ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are all the external links needed in the "External links" section? Snowman (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are now only 2, NOAA and Oceans (Open Directory Project), which seems reasonable if you're happy with those. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are they consistent with WP:EL? Do they provide a unique resource? Snowman (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are major, unique resources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are all the Wikilinks in the "See also" section needed? Snowman (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Used 2 in article, deleted the other 2 as basically irrelevant, so removed the section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Where do does the Wikibook and the portal go now? Snowman (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are beside the Notes which seems reasonable, unless there's a better home for them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any guidelines on this? Snowman (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They normally go in the See also, which we now don't have, so we just have to do our best here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is appropriate to put it on its a new "See also" section, possibly with Wikibooks? Snowman (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you prefer. I'm sure someone will tweak it if there's a preferred style in this situation but there's no fixed standard to follow. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The current structure using Wikilinks instead of the signpost boxes in a "See also section" may be tidier. It will be interesting to see if it improved. Snowman (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was mystified about the 10,000 Greeks image, so I did a bit of searching. Can the caption be improved? After a bit of searching I found this here; "A famous part of the Anabasis is Xenophon's description of the Greeks, shouting "Thalassa, thalassa" (the sea, the sea) at the top of a great dune, when they saw the sea." I presume the famous quote is "Thalassa, thalassa". Is the quote I found relevant to the image? Snowman (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, more or less. A fuller quote is in the Xenophon ref in the article; have copied the ref to the caption for convenience. The usual spelling of sea in the quote has -tt- as opposed to the more modern -ss-. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am still puzzled why the image is in black and white. I would have expected a painting to be in colour. Is a colour version of the image availabe? Snowman (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen a colour version (nor has Google); the painting was litho printed in monochrome in a book, Hutchinson's History of the Nations, and that's where Life got it from. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that details of the painting are catalogued somewhere. It seems to me that the caption should explain that this is a black and white version of a colour painting, if this is what has happened. Also, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(captions) says that the date should be included for captions of paintings. Snowman (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have added the date and "monochrome printed version" to the caption. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear why the Greeks were pleased to see the sea, if that is what there words mean. They would not want to drink it. The caption seems to be inadequate to me. I have had to search to find out why the image has been added to the this page. The Wiki article, Anabasis (Xenophon), says that when the army saw the sea they knew where they were. According the the Wiki, for them the sea was a significant "landmark" helping them to determine their bearings. Is historic literature about an army being pleased to see the sea, because it indicated their location was in "home" territory within the scope of this article? Snowman (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that more easy-to-find wikilinks are needed in the captions to be consistent with the guidelines. Snowman (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. The Xenophon one is done, will look through the others. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you adding in-line refs? They are often in the article. My suggested problem was that more easy-to-find Wikilinks need adding in captions. Snowman (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I copied refs to the captions that possibly needed them. Hope that's ok now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omission: radioactive substances as pollution. Possibly from damaged Japanese power stations. Possibly from historical nuclear bomb tests. Snowman (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omission: nuclear submarines armed with nuclear warheads from the warfare section. Snowman (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omission: Many nuclear power stations are on the coast to make use of water as a coolant (heat dump). This would be another addition for the use of the sea in the "Humans and the sea" section. Snowman (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Balance problem; about the nuclear deterrent of nuclear armed submarines. "... their possible replacement and future roles are being questioned." This is a political issue and some people answer these questions by been certain that a nuclear deterrent is needed and they explain more about nuclear proliferation and the possibility of being attacked. The article should be more balanced and present both side of the discussion. Some people would say that the dangers of the cold war have subsided. Some people would say that the dangers arising from nuclear proliferation have increased. Snowman (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
removed political clause, the article isn't the place for that discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the political issue has been removed, the remaining information on nuclear submarines looks odd at the end of a paragraph on WWII. Dates of the age of nuclear submarines would help the reader. Snowman (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omission; Current research and exploration, likely future research directions, and likely future exploration. Snowman (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Oceanography article does not go into details of the direction of future research and I don't think we should speculate either. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to what might be found in reliable sources about future research directions. Current research and exploration is omitted. Snowman (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that a user has also commented on this omission on the talk page. Snowman (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added by Chiswick Chap. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current second paragraph in the "Geography" section is about the history of geography and so it is not in the right place. Snowman (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to History section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem: The caption "Movement of molecules as waves pass". What sort of waves? All sorts of waves or a particular type of wave? Does this include ripples? Snowman (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is the same for all waves but is more easily demonstrated with ripples. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without implying corroboration, I would guess that you are correct. Snowman (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omission: The pollution section of the article does not report on what is legal or illegal to dump at sea; see Marine_debris#Laws_and_treaties. 17:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem: "... falls as rain or snow, thereby sustaining life on land, and returns to the sea." Not all rain returns to the sea; see Endorheic basin. Snowman (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem: the geography section is currently mainly about the definition of geography. Specific details of the geography of the Earth's sea are missing. Snowman (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify. I found this quote "Marine geography draws on the traditional and well-established skills of the geographer to observe, map, survey, analyse and interpret a wide range of physical and human variables but focuses on the natural and social science of the sea and coastline." That's what we have tried to do. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I will think about the heading structure. Snowman (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have put explanations of marine disciplines relevant to physical science in one paragraph. Perhaps, explanations of more disciplines can be added. Snowman (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Hawaii is not so far from the Great Pacific garbage patch. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe or maybe not, I am not sure. The puzzle about the picture remains, because none of this is explained in the article nor the caption. The amount of rubbish looks exceptionally large. In Commons:Category:Beaches_of_Hawaii most of the beaches have little or no rubbish, and only a small minority of the photographs there show a lot of rubbish. The article may have a balance problem in showing a photograph featuring a lot rubbish, without indicating why there is so much rubbish there or anything about the beaches that do not have much rubbish on them. Snowman (talk) 09:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the image to restore balance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omission: I think that it would be worth explaining why seawater will not quench a thirst and would be harmful. Missing basic information. Snowman (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is beyond the scope of this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should have put that it is an omission the fact that drinking seawater will not rehydrate (common knowledge). The reasons for this can be explained on a liked page. I think that this is basic essential information and I think that it should be included, partly because the topic of desalination to make drinking water is included. It could be included briefly. Snowman (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added a sentence in Seawater. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just found the addition in the section of the water cycle. Snowman (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is outside the scope of the article. It is not specifically about the sea but about any large volume of cold water including lakes, rivers and aquifers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It is energy efficient and its use may extend. I would guess that it is more important than the Rankine cycle heat engine, which is included in the article. Snowman (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible balance problem; the Suez Canal is included, but the Panama Canal is not. Snowman (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In progress... Added Panama Canal. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia contradiction about radioactive pollution in Japan. In this article: "The amount of caesium-137 discharged in this event was relatively small ...". In Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster; "This emission of radioactivity into the sea represents the most important individual emissions of artificial radioactivity into the sea ever observed". Snowman (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omission. Invasive species (from the "Humans in the sea" section). Snowman (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Misleading: "Cold water is denser than warm water and tends to sink." It is generally true, but not near freezing point. If this was true, then water would freeze from the bottom and not the surface. When water cools from about 4C to zero it expands, thus cold water remains at the surface and the surface freezes and insulates. Snowman (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scope; Wind power is not power from the sea, however, some wind turbines happen to be placed out at sea. Snowman (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The short paragraph is about Offshore wind power and therefore I think it is relevant. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Snowman (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omission: lighthouses and foghorns. Snowman (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lighthouse added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section organisation problem. The last paragraph of the "Leisure" section includes US Navy divers going down to over 600 m and special manned submarines going down to 6000 m, which is professional diving and exploration. Readers might want to find some information quickly and this will be more difficult by looking for information under the wrong heading. Snowman (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved this information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omission; general information on underwater diving (or swimming) as a profession or as work. Much is made of diving for leisure in the article. Snowman (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This would cause lack of balance as the article does not include information on other marine occupations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omission; deaths at sea and drowning. Numbers. Snowman (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think not. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem; "In modern European literature, sea-inspired novels have been written by Joseph Conrad,[214] Herman Wouk,[215] and Herman Melville." Melville was an American. Snowman (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think not, now that the Culture section has been hived off. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that The Rime of the Ancient Mariner has a wiki page on The Rime of the Ancient Mariner in popular culture. I think that this work is important. Snowman
  • Lack of detail; The topic of coastal erosion in detail, the sea moving sand and shale and reshaping the coast. Governments spend a lot of money on sea defences. Snowman (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! I will work on this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To me, that looks like a good new section. It is what I was expecting when I mentioned a missing geography section above. I think that Spit (landform) and groyne (groin in the United States) should be included. At this juncture, I do not want to increase the load-time of the article by adding more images, but I think that an image of a groyne showing different levels of sand on either side of it would illustrative of a groyne limiting drift parallel to the beach. Snowman (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omission; Tidal defences. Sea walls and other sea defences, Thames Barrier, Dykes in the Netherlands, Levi (? spelling) in USA. Snowman (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will include this in the coastal erosion paragraph. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omission; Land reclamation from the sea. Airports built on man-made islands. Snowman (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarity problem; "... Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in 2011 may pollute the sea." This sounds vague. Snowman (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note it has been changed too "Nuclear accidents as at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in 2011 may pollute the sea." Please make an attempt to say if nuclear accidents have or have not polluted the sea with radiation. In think "may pollute the sea" is too vague. Snowman (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Balance problem and omission; Caulerpa lentillifera (or sea grapes) are eaten in the far East. The Wiki article describes what sounds like a modest industry in cultivating them. Snowman (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sea grapes are a kind of algae and algaculture is already included in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re thermal difference energy; "The projected cost per kilowatt has prevented the use of this technology for commercial energy production". It looks like there is quite a lot of research is being done on this, so it might not be as hopeless at the article indicates. There is something on JetWit.com, but I am not sure if it is RS. Snowman (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May need refining. Snowman (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omission; marine occupations in detail. Snowman (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is beyond the scope of this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a section on "Humans and the sea", so how can a section on humans who work at sea be outside the scope of the article? Snowman (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the subsections in "Humans and the sea" are about the different ways in which the sea is used for industrial purposes, trade, transport, leisure etc. It is obvious that these need employees, and that there must be services to support them. To write about these occupations in detail is beyond the scope of this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, there is a lot about diving for leisure (including a photograph) and not much about professional divers. Snowman (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given this and the talk page request, we are considering the best way to handle this topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omission; Definition section. A small part of the sea can be called gulf, bay, or strait. Snowman (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiability problem. " a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae Stow, Dorrik (2004). Encyclopedia of the Oceans. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-860687-7." You can not expect readers to read a whole book to verify a fact. Stow's book "Enclopaedia of the Oceans is 256 pages. You can only quote a maximum of a small page ranges only from a book. It is in the Wiki guidelines for verifiability. Same for "a b Kindersley, Dorling (2011). Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Ocean. Dorling Kindersley." and "Cotterell, Arthur (ed.) (2000). World Mythology. Parragon. ISBN 978-0-7525-3037-6.". Snowman (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what is happening here. In response to another reviewer's detailed request we've used RP numbering for the repeated references, so the item appears just once but with different page numbers in the text.Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I have not seen it used before. There is more about it on Template:Rp, which says "This template is only intended for sources that are used many, many times in the same article ..." Update: I have changed the format too {{rp|pages=233–7}} to get "p" or "pp" rendered, and and it is clearer that the numbers mean the pages of the books. Snowman (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omission; planetology of surface water. Apparently Mars had a lot of water and possibly big oceans 3.8 billion years ago; see Water on Mars. Snowman (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about "the connected body of salty water that covers over 70 percent of the Earth's surface." I don't think that water that may at one time have been present on Mars is within its scope. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A possible "sea" on Mars in the distant past may help to put things in context with considerations on why the Earth has kept its water so far. Snowman (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I recall that the reason why Mars is thought to have mostly dried up is that its gravity is not strong enough to prevent fast moving atoms and molecules in the atmosphere (including water vapour) from leaving the planet; however, the stronger Earth's gravity prevents H2O molecules (water vapour) from leaving the Earth (at the current prevailing temperatures). This is basic stuff. Please do not quote this without reference to a RS. Snowman (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omission: smuggling, people trafficking. Snowman (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of these "occupations" is restricted to the sea. I have added a bit about boat people. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have reports on radio and television news about large ports being used for smuggling. Perhaps, some additions on regulation and policing of trade by sea would help the article. Snowman (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omission: travel by refugees (including economic refugees). Snowman (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See previous reply. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section heading name and content: "The law of the sea". Does it need to be in the pleural? Perhaps, the section could be renamed to something like "International treaties and conventions" be more descriptive. I think a little more could be added about the main work of the International Maritime Organization (part of the UN) to cover a possible omission. Snowman (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed heading to "Maritime law". Added information on IMO. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omission; the international date line and customs associated with crossing it at sea. Snowman (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. But can you suggest a more suitable location? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It could go in a new sub-section of "Humans and the sea" called "Time keeping at sea". The recommendations of the 1917 Anglo-French Conference on Time-keeping at Sea could be included with information about international time zones (15° wide pole-to-pole gores) and standard time in territorial waters. Snowman (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do we want new sub-sections? I think we should concentrate on the basics of the subject and not clutter the article up with peripheral detail. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that the construct of the telling the time as sea was highly relevant to "Humans and the sea". Is telling the time at sea peripheral detail. I could go under a separate heading or perhaps under the heading of "International conventions and treaties" (currently called "Maritime law"). Snowman (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. The included link to time zone provides further detail as of the conference, etc. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added with reluctance. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See the FA on viruses; Virus#Role_in_aquatic_ecosystems; which says abut bacteriophages; "... essential to the regulation of saltwater and freshwater ecosystems." and "... are the most important mechanism of recycling carbon in the marine environment." The "Sea" article still has omissions about the importance of these viruses in the sea. Snowman (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omission; Aspects of the carbon cycle are included in the article, but a coherent account of the full cycle is not included. This is a fundamental topic and the sea has a key role. Snowman (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regression; someone has removed ocean thermal energy conversion and everything about it from the article recently. This topic been in the article for a long time and I think before the FAC started and no one here has asked for it to be removed. I think that it was a mistake to remove this topic, which is being researched and may have potential for large-scale power generation. Snowman (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed it and stand by the suggestion. This is a top level article and you have already raised the issue of it being too big. The culture section has been savagely pruned, and the history of the sea over geological time is concisely mentioned, to put it mildly. I would opppose including a minor technology like this, interesting though it is. Length of time it has been in the article doesn't seem relevant. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regression; Recently removed. The sea as a heat sink in energy efficient air-conditioning. Snowman (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With some reviewers seeking for a better balance between sections and others concentrating on possible omissions it is difficult to please everybody. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is one use of the sea that is now excluded from the article and I think the article is worse for it. Air cooling systems using the sea as a heat sink do exist and are successful. The article includes wind energy, because some wind turbines are placed out at sea, but the energy does not even come from the movement of the sea, so I think that balance has been lost. Snowman (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Cwmhiraeth. I was the one who removed it. Again, a minor technology. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS Although this doesn't really address your objection i would be happy to see the wind turbines deleted altogether - as you say, they do not relate to the sea, that just happens to be where they're plonked.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, content on wind-turbines can be minimised; perhaps, with only that they are built out at sea and NIMBY. Snowman (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Would "Marine biology" or "Biological science" be a better heading than "Life in the sea"? Viruses are on the edge of life, so using "Life in the sea" makes the assumption that viruses are a form of life, without discussion about what properties of life viruses have or do not have. Snowman (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the present name is better because the section is not about the study of marine life but is about the variety and range of lifeforms present in the sea. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Snowman (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem; "Convection currents within the mantle tend to drive these plates apart." What about the zones where the plates are forced together? Snowman (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have rephrased this section and have added an explanatory diagram. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem; I think that the "Ocean basins" section could relate to some of the geographical features of the ocean better; for example, say where the trenches are and name them. Snowman (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the Mid-ocean ridge and Oceanic trench articles. How many of these ridges and trenches do you want to name? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there are some huge trenches that should be mentioned. There is one that runs almost the entire length of Chile and there are other huge ones as well. Snowman (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the ridges might also need specific geographical reference. They are gigantic - bigger than the Himalayas. Also, details about these important discoveries. Snowman (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re-think; the ridges are wikilinked, which is probably adequate. Snowman (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regression: An image has been added back. Its new position is on the left at the top of the history section; however, there is also an image on the right of the page there and so some text is squashed between two images. This might not look good on small screens. Snowman (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed as not needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regression; I think that the recently added Carson's quote at the end of the culture section (and the end of the article) may be rather too idiosyncratic and also I think that it appears to contradict some of the technical parts of the article. "... from which life first arose ..." is controversial as there are a number of viable theories of the origin of life. "But the sea, though changed in a sinister way, ...", I have no idea what this is referring as the sea remains generally beneficial to life. "... the threat is rather to life itself", I would guess that it is highly unlikely that anything that could happen to the sea would kill all life on Earth within about the next half-billion years or a very very long time. It was published in 1951 and it may have seemed more appropriate in its time. It seems to me that it is obvious that this quote should have no part in this technical Wiki article. (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hamiltonstone made the point earlier in the review that the article needs a good ending to round it off, and I think that the quote is appropriate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A good ending may help, but I think that the old quote is an awful ending. I would be grateful if you would justify the old quote with reference to the problems that I have listed above. Snowman (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to have a discussion about how to end the article, but i would reject the premise that this is a "technical" article. It is a top level article about a thing that is at the centre of both geology, biology, human history and contemporary human life. Its centrality to these things is what makes it top-level in priority, long, and broad in scope. As to the quote, Carson's work is probably one of the most important twentieth century texts involving the sea and unlike some other things mentioned in the article, the sea is not only the setting for its events but the subject of the work. Happy to debate whether the quote is the right one or in the right place, but i thought as something that brought together the history of the sea with its present-day relationship with humankind, it was an appropriate place to conclude. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please advance the discussion with reference to the problems that I have listed above. Please refer to the Wiki article Origin of life where a number of ideas on the start of life on the Earth are presented, when justifying the part of the recently added quote that says that life first arose from the sea. Please note that some core topics are listed at Wikipedia:Version_0.7/Core_supplement and "sea" is listed under the major heading "Technical topics", then subheading "Earth", then subheading "Water". Snowman (talk) 10:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The quote is from a 1951 book is a copyright violation and should be removed immediately. Snowman (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment earlier - this is the section on the sea 'in culture', not the science of the origins of life. It is there because of Carson's very significant cultural influence through her writings, that might be described as 'popular science'. The quote is intended to reflect one of the major ideas then (and now) about human relationships with the sea. Copyvio is not an issue with quoting text extracts - it is not like image copyright. You will find similar quoting of text throughout Wiki articles, and you can see policy at WP:QUOTE and Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Text certainly can be copyrighted in a very similar way to images. I think that fair use justification is borderline here, so I have just removed the quote. I think is is best that this core article with over 2000 hits per day did not have possible distribution problems associated with carrying a copyrighted quote. What is the justification for fair use here? See Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources and Wikipedia:Non-free content. Snowman (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
THe list of core topics has no relevance to the content of the article. The list is merely a convenient organising of subject matter, where each subject appears under only one heading. It does not consititute guidance as to how any article should be written. I think if you had read either of the policies or guidelines (the one i cited or the one your yourself cited), you would see that the quote is completely within policy. For example, the WP guideline you cited states "For instance, we can quote a sentence or two from a movie review in an article on the movie" - which is exactly what we have done - quoted a sentence or two about the sea, in an article about the sea. Your removal of the quote appears to me tendentious, as it does not arise from the policy you quoted, and you have not presented a reubuttal of my explanation of why it is appropriate. As I read the discussion, one of the noms and I both think it is a good inclusion, you do not, no-one else has expressed a view, its inclusion is not in violation of any policy, yet you deleted it. Can i invite you to self-revert while we wait for others to possibly express a view? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My removal of the 1951 quote was done primarily as an urgent matter in case the copyrighted quote does not have fair use and this obviously is the safest course of action for the Wiki. Of course, with the possibility that it may not have a fair use in the article, I am not minded to return it to the article. I suspect that one of the nominators did not realise that the 1951 quote was copyrighted, and I removed the quote as a matter of urgency with its copyrighted status at the front of my mind. A think that a review for a film is not the same as a review for a core topic. I do not see any fair use justification for the quote in this article, since it is not necessary for the article, whereas a review of a film has an obvious relevance. Even if the quote could be used as fair use in the article, then I think that the quote is controversial and unsuitable, because it appears to say that life arose from the sea, which is only one of several hypotheses now; see Abiogenesis. I recall that a BBC television documentary broadcast within the last year did not have the sea as the most likely origin of life. The quote was not accompanied with its date in the prose of article and so it could be read out of context. I think that adding a copyrighted quote to an article would be expected to be discussed prior to its addition and not afterwards. Snowman (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this represents a potentially serious and undesirable precedent to set regarding text copyright violation. I have raised it on the article talk page, and will flag it as a copyright discussion at the FAC talk page. To be clear, I am happy to have a discussion about how to frame the quote, the science, whether it is the best quote to use etc, but the copyright argument I hope will be rejected. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are obviously always concerned by copyright issues, and Snowmanradio is to be commended for their concern. A reasonable quote, a paragraph or so is fair use. No one buys a book to read a paragraph, accordingly it does not impact Carson's heir's interests. Wikipedia tries to be like the "real world", and in the real world, a quote of a paragraph is fine. Look at any scholarly paper, or a solid history book.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am reassured that the quote can be used as fair use, so I have returned it to the article. The discussion can focus on the suitability of the old quote in the Wiki article (see the discussion on the article's Talk:Sea page). I think that the old quote from 1951 not put in appropriate context in the article, and so I think that that article's FA status is jeopardised. Snowman (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that a pre-amble on the controversy of the origin of life on Earth has been added to explain part of the presumptive quote, which seems to bring it into line with the wiki guidelines on introducing a point of view as being truth by the back door in quotes. The rest of the quote may provoke thought. The consensus seems to be that the quote can remain in the article. Snowman (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A large proportion of all life on Earth exists in the ocean, ..." Is this species count or biomass. "A large proportion" sounds vague. Snowman (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. I have rewritten this bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... and provides support for the carbon cycle.[66](pp204–229)". The page range is too big to enable easy verification from a book. I think that the carbon cycle should be explained more coherently, possibly with a whole paragraph or sub-section. Snowman (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a section on the carbon cycle. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... but the page range 204-229 is retained and this is too big to enable easy verification from a book. See WP:V. Snowman (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability is an important principal on the Wiki. Snowman (talk) 09:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Balance and accuracy problem; "Life probably originated in the sea, ...". There are lots of hypotheses about the origin of life now, so this is not balanced. It would probably be better "Life may have originated in the sea, ..." or balance the article with some of the other hypotheses. See Abiogenesis. Snowman (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Balance problem. "Scientists differ as to precisely where in the sea life arose". Another viable idea is that life may have arrived on Earth on from space, which is featured in the recently promoted GA on Comets. There are a number of other non-marine hypotheses on the origin of life as well. Snowman (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Altered. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduction: Does the introduction include a small part for the important topics in the article? New sections have been added to the article, so I have started bringing new important information about the sea to the introduction. I have been looking at the introduction for some time today, and so I may not find the right words for adding the ocean basins and current research, so I would be grateful if someone else would think about the introduction. Snowman (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think something about coasts including coastal erosion, the ocean basin including techtocic plates, and sea level including historic changes need to be added to the introduction. Snowman (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Control of the sea is important to the security of a maritime nation ...". This may be too vague. I would have guessed that control of the sea is important to defend against a land invasion from the sea by enemies and this may need to be added before continuing with port blockades. Snowman (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an introductory statement for the section on Naval Warfare and I do not believe it is too vague. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The introductory statement can remain, but I think the historic importance of using the sea to defend against a land invasion from the sea should follow and not something about port blockades. I would guess that air power is more important now. Snowman (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... surface deposits and sea ice, ...". Rather vague. What are these surface deposits? Does it mean snow? Snowman (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It actually says "... by ice in glaciers, surface deposits and sea ice" so I think it is clear that we are talking about sheets of ice, lying snow etc. here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everyone knows what snow is, so why call it surface deposits. I think that the readability is unnecessarily complex. Snowman (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lying snow may consolidate into ice and so "surface deposits" is a more accurate term. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The movement of water in the form of currents, tides and waves affects the coastline and modifies the climate of coastal regions.[6]". I am not sure why only coastal regions are affected. Is this a mistake? Snowman (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a statement of fact. It does not state that nothing else is affected. It just states that the coastline is. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this statement is not adequate. It might be correct, but it leaves the reader wondering about non-coastal regions. The climate of whole of Ireland is affected by the Gulf stream and not just the coastal regions, so I would regard the article and not telling the complete truth. Also, the Wiki article on the Gulf Stream says "Although there has been recent debate, there is consensus that the climate of Western Europe and Northern Europe is warmer than it would otherwise be due to the North Atlantic drift, one of the branches from the tail of the Gulf Stream.". It is like saying the male Sun Parakeet is yellow and omitting to say that the female is also yellow. The full effects of how the currents in the sea affect the climate should be in the article and not just about the selected area of coastal zones. Snowman (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The water in the sea was thought to come from the Earth's volcanoes, starting 4 billion years ago, released by degassing from molten rock." I think that is needs to be said clearly if this is now thought to be wrong. Snowman (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the answer to this. Chiswick Chap is away. Why don't you do some research into the subject? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, User Chiswick Chap would be the best person to think about this. When is he back? Snowman (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... caused by a geological event such as an underwater earthquake or landslide, a meteorite impact, ...". A meteorite impact is an astronomical event and not a geological event. Snowman (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... 0.65 percent is in the form of vapour or liquid fresh water in lakes, rivers, the ground and air.". The "or" here puzzles me. I would not say; "I have 10 ounces of porcelain in the form of a cup or a plate". I would use "and" instead of "or" here and say; "I have 10 ounces of porcelain in the forms of a cup and a plate". Snowman (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think either is OK, actually. The trouble was that you made it say "... 0.65 percent is in the forms of vapour, liquid fresh water in lakes, rivers, the ground and air", which would mean ... in the form of the ground and in the form of air. I've replaced the "or" with "and" and got rid of the verbose "in the form(s) of". --Stfg (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think that your recent amendment to replace the "or" and use "and" makes the text easier to follow. The "and" indicating a summation. Snowman (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regression; "The oceans are home to a diverse collection of life forms that use it as a three-dimensional habitat." Some animals a mobile on the sea bed (two dimensional) and some creatures are relatively stationary and cling to a rock. Snowman (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think not. They are referring to different aspects. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The account of tsunamis in the "Sea" article is not the same as in Wiki "Tsunami" article. This article says that a tusnami is like a wind wave, but the tsunami article says that they are not like wind waves, but are more like fast tides. I think this needs double checking with reference to more than one source. Snowman (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not say "a tusnami is like a wind wave" but that, as it approaches shore, its behaviour resembles a wind-generated wave. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • About tsunami; "Powerful events can temporarily lift the surface of the water, usually by a few feet." When a meteorite impacts in an ocean and causes a tsunami, then I presume that the initial movement of seawater will be downwards. Snowman (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • About tsunami; I am puzzled by two apparently contradictory statements in the same paragraph; "... a tsunami, radiating outwards at a speed proportional to the square of the sea depth." and "The speed at which these travel varies with the square root of the water depth ...". I presume that these can not be both correct, because speed proportional to the square of the sea depth would be different to speed varying with the square root of the water depth. Snowman (talk) 09:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem: "A trough precedes the wave and is the first thing to reach the coast, ...". This is not always the case, but when it happens it can be an useful warning sign. I think that omitting that the wave can precede the trough is a serous omission. See Tsunami Facts and Information on the Australian gov website, which says: "Depending on whether the first part of the tsunami to reach the shore is a crest or a trough, it may appear as a rapidly rising or falling tide." Snowman (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • bout tsunamis; "Powerful events can temporarily lift the surface of the water, usually by a few feet." I think that seawater can also drop. User Pbsouthwood also mentions this below. Snowman (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The US Government Survey to which this is cited is not available at the moment because of the US budget crisis. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that User Pbsouthwood has fixed it. Snowman (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds odd; "Often several tsunami are caused by a single geological event and arrive at intervals of between eight minutes and two hours." It sounds odd that a wave two hours late can be caused be a single geological event. How long does a "single geological event" last? Does a "single geological event" include the aftershocks? Snowman (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A single event possibly causing several tsunamis. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How does that happen? Snowman (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omission and balance problem; the "Animals and other marine life" section includes the marine reptiles "sea snakes" and "sea turtles", but "marine lizards" and "marine crocodiles" do not get a mention. Snowman (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The animals mentioned are only examples and do not provide a comprehensive list. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, but the sequence of vertebrates seems a little disorganised. "Cetaceans" sounds like jargon to me. 14:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Can you suggest a better single word covering whales, dolphins and porpoises? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Cetacean" is not jargon. You can find it in any little general-use pocket dictionary. --Stfg (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not in the 2002 edition (reprinted 2003) of the Chambers Mini Dictionary ISBN 0550 100121, which boasts 35,000 references and 45,000 definitions. I have just checked, on page 81 it goes; "... cervix, cessation, cesspool, CET, cf, CFC, chacun a son gout, chador ...". If the nominators really would like suggestions on alternatives, then I would be happy to help, but may I suggest that the nominator has a try at it first. More than one word may be needed, but I think several words would be better than one word that is not in a biggish mini dictionary. "Cetacean" sounds like jargon to me. Snowman (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why I should be pushed aside from contributing here. It's in the Little Oxford Dictionary today, and has been since at least 1941. The word is used in news reports such as this and many others (try Google). In fact, a Google UK search for the word just on the BBC web site (not a specialist scientific site) yields 2,450 hits. We have an article on the subject, and more than mainspace 200 articles linking just to the redirect page for this word. Introducing rather common scientific words like this one way that Wikipedia can help readers to learn things like how to understand those very news reports. Why should we dumb it down the extent of avoiding words as common as this? --Stfg (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Main articles: Marine animal and Seabird"; Marine animal redirects to "Marine biology". This "Marine biology" page is also signposted under the section above. There may be a better Wiki page to signpost that focuses on marine animals. Snowman (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find a better page so I removed it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omission about tsunami; probably worth a line on high-tech early tsunami detection and warning systems. Snowman (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible regression; I note that someone has added the subheading "Marine biology" as a level 3 heading. I am aware that you thought that it was unsuitable as a level 2 heading above; see your comment of 22 Sept 2013 above. Snowman (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was not added by me and I have removed it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem; "This is half the 24 hours and 50 minute period that it takes for the Earth to make a complete revolution and return the Moon to its previous position relative to an observer." 24 hrs and 50 minutes is longer than the Earth takes make a complete rotation. The "Earth's rotation" Wiki page says; "The Earth rotates once in about 24 hours with respect to the sun and once every 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds with respect to the stars." Snowman (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is in your lack of understanding. Let us suppose that both the moon and star A are due south from an observer at midnight. The following night star A is due south at about 4 minutes before midnight while the moon is due south at 50 minutes after midnight. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by the nominator. Yesterday Snowmanradio made some edits to the Tsunami section which left it with grammatical-type errors, poor quality prose, a capital "A" in the middle of a sentence and three bare urls as references. I have not been checking other edits you have been making, Snowman, but request you not to edit the article again while it is at FAC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not put the bare urls there, User Pbsouthwood did, when he kindly improved the readability of the section, which is carefully explained in the edit summary of his edit of 4 Oct 2013. I did accidentally leave a capital "A", when I was editing to improve the flow, and I apologise for that. I think that the words of the section were a combination of my edits, User Pbsouthwood's edits and previous editor's work. I am puzzled by your complaint and I see no reason that I should refrain from editing the article. Snowman (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The last four edits were yours. You did not adequately check what you did and you left the section in a deplorable state. You have since done two edits and produced the following "These events can temporarily displace a vast amount of water and temporarily lift or lower the surface of the seawater usually by a few feet in the affected area. The potential energy of the displaced seawater ..." You have used each of the words "temporarily", "seawater" and "displace" twice in this sentence and a half, and I have had to rewrite them. Please leave the article alone. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) My apologies if my edits caused any confusion, I thought the edit summaries would explain adequately. I edited directly to save myself some time and effort. I did not expect it to be controversial. I left the raw urls as I thought it better to leave it to the nominators to select which of the references they prefer. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lets look at the edits to the tsunami section. I think that User Pbsouthwood made a good job of re-writing the science explaining his edits with full edit summaries. Then I changed relativity little in four edits. Then User Cwmhiraeth made two edits and then added tsunami warning systems. Most of my sentence reorganisation to the first paragraph has been kept, I did not change the middle paragraph, and my amendment to the third paragraph had been kept. I am puzzled why User Cwmhiraeth is directing complaints at me. I see no reason why I should refrain from editing the article. Snowman (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have gone way outside your role as a reviewer and in this instance left the Tsunami section in a deplorable state having failed to read it through carefully after your edits. I was really angry when I saw it. During your review you have made a number of useful suggestions for which I thank you. Now I suggest you stop your review and let the delegates make the decision as to whether the article reaches the required standard. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional impression. I think that the nominators may have given reviewers a lot to do here. I note that the article had 40 edits between achieving GA status on 9 July 2013 and FA nomination on 16 August 2013; see diff. I think that including some topics may have unwittingly given some included topics undue prominence over related or similar topics; for example, the full section on sea gypsies may not be in balance with other cultures with lifestyles based on the sea. I do not see why the topic of the 10,000 Greeks is within the scope of this page. Topic selection may need refining by including relevant topics that are not covered and removing excess detail about included topics. The page is now 79 kB (13236 words) of readable prose size, and WP:TOOBIG suggests that more than 60 kB is too long. The discussion on page size may not have advanced far, partly because the page was significantly shorter than this at the time earlier reviewers completed their reviews and partly because one tolerant opinion on large article sizes appears to have been actively canvassed on 12 Sept 2012; see User Cwmhiraeth's comment. It seems to me that the basic natural science, history, culture, and possibly human activities sections fall naturally into different areas of interest, that would enable splitting off parts. I do not see a compelling reason to keep this article as long as it is. I think that this article should be made shorter, for the explanations given in WP:TOOBIG. Snowman (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We are actively looking at the best way to do this now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have split the 'Culture' section into a sub-article, leaving a single summary paragraph behind. This has reduced the article by nearly 20 kB so we are already close to the 60 kB guideline. (And the Greeks have vanished ;-} with it, too.) I agree that the sea gypsies paragraph is a bit detailed - have trimmed them, renamed to Indigenous sea peoples, and added Arctic tribes also. Is there anything else specifically that you feel should be slimmed down or hived off, given that the length is very nearly right? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may be confusing the page size that includes all the wiki code and references with the readable prose size (rendered words in prose). Do you have access to the "page size" Wiki facility? The readable prose size has been reduced to 72 kB (12143 words) by splitting culture. You could consider the article as several blocks that each cover an area of interest, when looking for for more blocks that could be removed. Does the history section block cover a specialised interest? Presumably most the the history is currently reiterated on various Wiki articles. Snowman (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, more to be done. No, neither of us is a historian; just tried to cover the essentials. Will do to History what I did to culture - either later tonight or very early tomorrow morning, then we'll see where we are. Other items are in work between the two of us. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With all the changes so far: Wiki text = 138 kB, prose size (text only) = 71 kB (12000 words). The Wiki text size with mark-up code (ie 138 kB) is what you see alongside the edit history and this is not the same as prose size. Snowman (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a mistake to ruin the article by removing more chunks. Big subjects need big articles to be comprehensive. There are plenty of featured articles that are over 100kb, here are some examples and there are plenty more - BAE Systems, Alfred Russel Wallace, Zinc, Psilocybin, Grand Teton National Park, Tang Dynasty, Greater Manchester, Alzheimer's disease, Hungarian Revolution of 1956, Empire of Brazil, Alcohol laws of New Jersey, Mars, Speed of light, Star, Sun, Venus, Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, The Beatles and Henry I of England. The Middle Ages with 159kb became a FA in May this year. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have got the facts wrong. The page sizes that you have provided are not the readable prose sizes, because you have have included all the mark-up code, tables, and so on. You should be considering the readable prose size only. For example the prose size of the "Alzheimer's disease" article is 47 kB (7191 words) "readable prose size", and "Alfred Russel Wallace" 52 kB (8518 words) "readable prose size", and "Middle Ages" has 87 kB (14386 words) "readable prose size". Saying that there are bigger FAs is not highly meaningful, because the page size guideline is only a guideline. My point about the "sea" article, is that it is a long article that can be divided into blocks of interest that can reasonably be split off for the benefit of information organization and access of the Wikipedia. Snowman (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Snowman (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: It looks like enough trimming and splitting has bought the article to a more reasonable size (currently 63 kB, 10567 words of readable prose size). At this juncture, it seems to me that further shortening may not be fruitful, especially if the nominators wish to keep the remaining article together. Incidentally, I have removed two not particularly helpful images to reduce page load time, but that does not affect prose size. Snowman (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not totally convinced that retaining half of the article as "Humans and the sea" will be beneficial, but I am prepared to go with the flow and see what happens. Meanwhile I fear that apparent lack of room for expansion may jeopardise writing style. The scope of "sea" is huge and this seems to be a relatively "young" article. Snowman (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. These are key issues and we're considering them now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a discussion about this article length on the articles talk page, Talk:Sea. Snowman (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There has been some big apparently unilateral reductions in the size of the basic science sections by User Chiswick Chap on 16 and 17 Sept 2013. I would have thought that this would need prior discussion and consensus especially during a FAC. It looks like regressions have occurred with new omissions being created. How are reviewers supposed to follow the progress of an article when this happens? Snowman (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are considering restoring these pieces of removed information in view of the fact that the size of the article seems no longer to be an issue. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a look at the modifications done by the unexplained removal of referenced text. I note that often the edit summary "crisper" was used, which for me disguised the edits somewhat. Please use descriptive edit summaries. I have fixed some of the regressions. To clarify, I am currently "going with the flow" without spitting off "Man and the sea" to see what happens. I think that there is no need for unexplained chopping down of sections, because the Wiki has plenty of space and this article could easily be split into two halves (anthropomorphically, twins); the science of the "sea" and "Man and the sea". Perhaps, the split articles might become FAs more easily than one combined FA. Snowman (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any problems with load time?. I have finding that saving changes to the "Sea" article can take several seconds and longer than it takes to load the article to read it. It this a local problem? or are other editors and readers having similar difficulties loading and saving the "Sea" article? Snowman (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find this article no slower to load while editing than other articles of a similar size. I find that saving time is longer than loading time for other articles as well. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I've been having problems with save-time for all long articles and talk pages, mostly in the last few days. I don't think it's a particular problem with this article. – Quadell (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So have I. But this article gives me no problem, even on my 7-year-old system. Less than 2 seconds to load and render on Chrome, about 10 seconds even on clunky old IE8. --Stfg (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Article size; See WP:PROSPLIT, which says "If unsure [about spliting], or with high profile or sensitive articles, start a "Split" discussion on the article talk page, and consider informing any associated WikiProject.". Following this guideline, I have started a discussion at Talk:Sea and I hope to see opinions and a consensus gather one way or the other over the course of a week or two. Snowman (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional impression 2. I think that the general architecture, organization, and content of this long article may soon reach a plateau of development and perhaps a more stable state. I would think that several (about 7) new sections and other new lines have not had sufficient time for enough reviewers to consider, so I think that general work on copy editing, especially of the new sections, can continue. The introduction is in the middle of a re-write to reflect the expanded article. This may be a good time to consider re-starting this FAC on the grounds that the article has changed a lot during this FAC, so that reviewers can comment on this more stable form of the article. Snowman (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You gotta be joking! This review has been going on for seven weeks already and is longer than the article itself. Other editors have had ample time to view the changes made and alter their opinions on the article if they see fit. Let's not start the whole gruelling procedure over again. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first three weeks of the FAC were relatively quite. Almost every part of the article that was about something technical has had to be rewritten, and the culture section has been split off and summarised for the article. The article is currently 72 kB (12086 words) of readable prose size and it has 223 references, so it is not surprising that the FAC is taking a several weeks. As far as I am aware, no spot checking of sources have been reported to this FAC so far. About seven recently added new sections have not been reviewed by very many people. A lot of the FAC so far has been about the omissions and organisation of the article, and I think that it is only now that the article has become stable enough for the second phase of the FAC, which I think will be like a more normal FAC involving discussion about words, sentences and MoS, rather than omissions of whole sections. I think that a lot can be said for restarting this FAC at this juncture. Snowman (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no desire to repeat this gruelling review process by restarting the FAC. I believe that the assertion that "Almost every part of the article that was about something technical has had to be rewritten" is untrue. I have invited the editors who have supported the article's candidacy earlier in the review process to take another look in case they wished to change that view. (PumpinSky seems to have departed WikiPedia and ColonelHenry's support was recent and post-dated most changes.) It seems to me that Snowman has gone beyond his proper role of article reviewer in his current suggestion that the review should be restarted. It's almost as if he thinks he is in charge! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my proper role as a reviewer, I have made a suggestion to the FAC delegates that they might consider restarting the article, because it has been unstable during this FAC owing to many new sections and paragraphs being added and the culture section being split off. I think that this is an entirely appropriate suggestion and I think that this might be reasonably considered in their summing up for this article and any article that had substantial changes during the FAC. If more reviewers read the new sections, then the FAC delegates can reasonably say that several new sections have been added during the FAC, which were seen by an adequate number of reviewers in the latter half of the FAC after new sections had been added, and hence that the FAC can be completed by this FAC. I would say that User ColonelHenry would have seen most of the new sections, if he re-read the article on the day he finalised his review; however, the carbon cycle section, the nitrogen cycle paragraph, and portions on diamond mining and bathymetry were all added afterwards. It is certain that the earlier reviewers have not commented on many of the new sections yet. At the present time, I doubt if all of the sections have been adequately reviewed here; however, the final decision is with the FAC delegates. Please note that the FAC delegates are the only people empowered to close FAC discussions and reviewers can only offer their observations and other comments, as far as I am aware. Actually, the few restarted FACs that I have seen have passed quite easily in their restarted form having attracted sufficient reviewers, and I expect they were easy for FAC delegates to close and conclude. However, I suspect that the window of opportunity to restart this FAC may have passed, because review on the current stable from of this article has continued here and it would be somewhat more difficult to make a clean start now. Please indicate which technical sections have not been modified during this FAC. I can say for certain the technical aspects of tides, waves, the ocean basin, and power were substantially rewritten, and the section on tsunamis currently has comments without replies from me above and from User User Pbsouthwood below. Snowman (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jimfbleak[edit]

Support Comments from Jim bravo for tackling this major topic. I'm not going to quibble aabout details of what you might have included/excluded, or what it's called, but a few points. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reaffirm support I was asked to have another look in view of the changes instigated by Snowman. I think the article is stronger than ever, and I'm happy to state that I still support it for FA status. I certainly don't think it's appropriate to restart an article with four or five supports, where only one editor is suggesting that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reading the article again. I was concerned that not many reviewers had commented on several new sections, so your up-to-date positive review of this hugely modified article is reassuring. It is also reassuring to have your opinion that the FAC can be safely finalised here. I am still finding problems, but not major issues like missing content or organisational problems. Snowman (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Winds create currents through friction, setting up slow but stable circulations of water throughout the oceans. — You mention this and the thermohalic circulation, but isn't it the case that a body of water on a rotating planet with a temperature gradient would develop a circulation anyway? On your version, it implies that the thermohaline effect would be directly north-south, and that a gas (the air) is entirely responsible for moving immense quantities of water in the circulation pattern. The water is subject to the Coriolis effect as well.
added and wikilinked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is still no indication in lead that winds largely affect the oceans only near the surface, and do not drive the deep circulation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
added 'surface' to the wind-driven currents. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tides, the twice-daily rise and fall of sea levels — "usually" as you make clear later
done Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • anaerobic bacteria producing hydrogen sulphide... Others cluster round deep sea vents where mineral-rich flows of water emerge from the seabed.— you don't link these items, even though this sulphur-based ecosystem is the only one that doesn't rely on energy from the sun
It was linked further down - have moved link to the earlier mention of vents. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see any clear indication that the sulphur-processing bacteria are the basis of the vent ecosystem, and I would have thought they were primary producers anyway, since they convert heat and inorganic chemicals into products that other life forms can access by consuming the bacteria and each other (like plants, but with heat instead of visible light) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added sentence on the vent community with primary producer bacteria, consumers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • precipitated out in the form of calcium carbonate as the sea becomes more acidic. —Misleading. If it was genuinely acidic, pH<7, all the CaCO3 would in fact dissolve. You mean more dissolved CO2, which does precipitate out the compound.
reworded - please check (feel free to edit). Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The next sentence This is likely to have profound effects on certain planktonic marine organisms because their ability to form shells will be reduced has now lost its subject. Need to say that rising CO2 levels may have this effect (and presumably raise the CCD?) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pH is expected to reach 7.7 by the year 2100, an increase of 320 percent in acidity in a century — technically correct but misleading, it's still alkaline, and the percentage represents a change from 7.9x10-9 to 2x10-8.
removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • there seems to be no indication that Nikkimaria's points have been addressed, and I can see at least one (short citations) that appears not to have been considered
Cwmhiraeth is working on them now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll wait for the responses to Nikkimaria as well as my own outstanding points before I give an overall opinion. I did an oceanography course once, this has jogged a few very rusty little grey cells. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No further queries, just waiting to see the referencing changes before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria's second pass seems to have been addressed, changed to support aboveJimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Adabow[edit]

  • "Earth is the only planet in the solar system with liquid surface water, but other earthlike planets may have oceans." - This could be slightly confusing to some readers will little astronomical knowledge. Perhaps capitalise Solar System and/or amend the second half of the sentence to 'but earthlike planets in other planetary systems may have oceans'. Also, should 'earthlike' not be capitalised, seeing as it is relating to the planet, rather than ground/soil. Consider linking to Earth analog here.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the salts are aqueous, how can you define which metal goes with each anion? Why can you say '3 grams (0.11 oz) of sulphates, carbonates, bromides and other salts' - this mass would change if all of these salts mentioned here are sodium salts, for example. Where is the citation for this info? ([43] does not cover it.)
Removed, cited Millero 2008 for reference composition of seawater. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The -ph spelling of sulfur derivatives is acceptable, but note that it is becoming less and less common, especially in chemistry circles.
Noted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no link between seawater acidification and the reduced ability to form shells (it's to do with partial pressure of CO2 and carbonate concentration and calcium carbonate solubility, is it not?)
I'm not sure about this. One of the sources states "As CO2 continues to dissolve in the ocean it increases ocean acidity, making it harder for some marine organisms to form shells. These ecological changes in turn reduce the capacity of the ocean to absorb CO2." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to write there is no mention of the link between seawater acidification and shell formation (in this article). There's discussion of seawater acidification, and then of calcium solubility, but no explicit link between the two. Readers who are interested in the consequences of ocean acidification must click through to another article to get any idea what those are and how they work. Adabow (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Added explicit link with NOAA ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Adabow (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the main article link for the waves section be wind wave, not wave?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "all the major groups of animals" is vague; can the 'groups' be defined biologically?
We could almost use 'Kingdoms' but unfortunately there is no agreement on how many of those there are. Have edited to read 'A wide variety of...' which is certainly true. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The animals section includes a sentence about bacteria, fungi, microalgae and protozoa. Perhaps rename this section, maybe to heterotrophs?
See discussion of Plants section above. Have renamed the two to 'Producers' and 'Consumers': since 'Primary producers' was felt to be too technical, 'Heterotrophs' probably would have been also. However, the naming remains unresolved, please see above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ship names (except prefixes) should be italicised (MOS:ITALICS)
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FAO should probably per expanded per MOS:ABBR
Done, acronym has been expanded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent article, and a pleasure to read. Adabow (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. We will work our way through them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic piece of work, happy to support now. Adabow (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ColonelHenry[edit]

I admit that this is a tough article to review because of the breadth of coverage that the article's subject demands. But the Sea wouldn't deserve any less. The nominators have done an excellent job preparing the research and writing in advance of and during this FAC. I wish them the best of luck going forward, and look forward to supporting this article. I do have a few comments. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General comments with regard to the specific FA criteria:

Criteria 1

  • 1A - ALMOST PASS (24SEP13) - I believe this article is well-written, it's well planned in terms of sections and content. While I would have written things slightly differently (i.e. certain modes of utterances and idiomatic expressions I tend to eschew), I would regard this article to be of a professional standard. The word "brilliant" requires a subjective judgment that I tend to avoid in an FAC because it doesn't reveal anything actionable.
    • I tend to think the "In culture" section at the end of the article reads like a miscellaneous list and lacks a cogent prose structure. While I disagree with the editor above claiming that there needs to be a magically amazing or captivating ending, I think this section needs better prose and flow.
      • Section has been edited to improve flow, without we hope making it too much longer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Revision of the "In Culture" section suffices. Good Job.--ColonelHenry (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1B - PASS - This article is comprehensive and thorough, balancing exquisite detail with WP:SUMMARY
  • 1C - ALMOST/FAIL PASS (24SEP13) - The research that goes into this type and scope of article must be impressive, and this article covers a wide variety of sources from high quality legal documents, historical works, scientific works, and literary and artistic works. HOWEVER: There are problems in consistency with several of the references, for instance fn.71 is listed as "Stow, pp. 160–163." linking to a source below, yet other footnotes are far more complete. These sources (Stow, Kindersley, and Cotterell) ought to be better incorporated into the format of the larger majority of references. In order for me to support, the references will have to be made consistent in one style.
  • May I say that the new longer version is easy to understand, but I think the original version is used a lot on the Wiki. Various headings can be used for the references sections; however, I have seen the books used as sources under the heading "Cited texts" more often rather than "Sources", so I have changed the heading to "Cited texts", which is probably more descriptive. Unfortunately, using the longer versions and more cite templates would have increased the article load time. Snowman (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Chiswick Chap:, while the full citation is nice, there are now several of them among the footnotes for the three sources name the relevant guideline is WP:CITE#Inline citations#Footnotes#Citing multiple pages of the same source which provides the preferable solutions to this problem, and the {{rp}} template which I suggested on my talk page seems to be the better of the options given the need for consistency of citations throughout the article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concerns regarding citation consistency have been properly and sufficiently addressed. --ColonelHenry (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1D - PASS - I don't see any POV issues that undermine neutrality.
  • 1E - PASS - I don't see any outstanding content disputes.

Criteria 2

  • 2A - PASS (24SEP13) STANDBY - I have to spend some time to consider the lede further.
  • 2B - PASS - The article's structure is rather logical. However, I think the last section "In culture" is rushed and has the feel of a bunch of unassociated miscellany just thrown into a spare desk drawer. Because of the breadth of this section, I concede it's difficult to summarize, but a better job has to be done here with reference to my comments above for Criterion 1A.
  • 2C - PASS (24SEP13) FAIL - Consistent citations...I issued a few comments above with regard to Criterion 1C concerning inconsistencies that ought to be remedied.
  • Have replaced the short Stow/Cotterell refs with full format references. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, we can use RP for these repeated refs --- done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation consistency properly and sufficiently addressed. --ColonelHenry (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 3

  • 3 - STANDBY - I did not yet check the images for compliance. PASS (24SEP13) - Images are sufficiently and properly licensed appropriately for free/fair use per policy.

Criterion 4

  • 4 - PASS - I know there were comments above (I replied to them), stating that the article is too long. I don't think this article is too big, and well in proportion to other lengthy FA topics. This article is 133kB when I saw it, my FA for Alcohol laws of New Jersey was 153kB. I think the focus is keen and the article strikes a great balance between detail and summary style. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that a longish culture section has recently been split off with a summary being used for this article. Do you think that "Sea in culture" (10 kB or 1773 words) should be added back? That would make the "Sea" article over 70 kB (10635 words) of readable prose (note different measurements to what you have reported from the edit history list). The alcohol laws page is currently 58 kB (9613 words) and may not easily divided into separate interest blocks. Snowman (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say that in improving the "In culture" section it should be expanded, just that the flow of the prose was lacking because of its rather miscellaneous/random nature. It feels like a grocery list, not a summary. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for clarifying. The "grocery list" analogy might be enough to give the nominators some ideas to run with. Snowman (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to place my STRONG SUPPORT on this article. Excellent job in research and preparation on a very difficult subject to approach.--ColonelHenry (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and your support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pbsouthwood[edit]

Lead and section: Sea water: generally good.

Section: Wind waves:

The waves form at right angles to the direction from which the wind blows. There is insufficient context for this to make sense. Clarification and citation needed.

Clarified. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The height of the wave increases as the energy in it is unable to move downwards and is forced upwards instead. Neither accurate nor good English.

Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Small waves form in restricted areas of water with islands and other land masses, but large waves form in open stretches of sea where the wind blows steadily and strongly. It is more accurate and possibly clearer to say that the size of the wave depends on the fetch - the distance that the wind has blown over the water - and the strength and duration of the wind. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oscillating may be preferable to circling, as the vertical component of oscillation is constrained by proximity to the bottom. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Tsunami:

This temporarily lifts the surface of the water, usually by a few feet (one meter). One meter is not a suitable conversion for a few feet. Similarly for "a few hundred feet (one hundred meters)". Is it necessarily always lifted?

Removed conversions (which must have been added by someone else as they used American spelling). I think the surface is always lifted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its behaviour is similar to a wind-generated wave, but the scale is vastly different and involves not just the surface layers of the sea but the whole water column. All shallow water waves involve the whole water column. Wind waves involve the whole water column when they are affected by the bottom, as in refraction and breaking. Shallow water wave velocity is a function of depth, period is fixed.

I think this statement is correct because it is referring to the wave passing over the continental shelf and approaching the coast. Wind-formed waves only disturb the top few metres of the sea. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was referring to the mechanism of steepening and shortening, but I see that it could be referring to general propagation.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The water in front of the wave may be sucked back and added into the crest, Drained back into a leading trough might be a more accurate way of describing it, but check up on this, I am not an expert and am relying on long term memory.

The trough is an absence of water and is formed by the water drawing back into the wave. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But what causes the first trough in a wave train? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how it is formed but it certainly exists. I have rephrased this part of the section to clarify. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find much in the way of references, but what I have found suggests that depending on the precise mechanism, the water level may be raised, lowered, or both at different places, by the causative event, so the tsunami may have a leading crest or a leading trough in a given direction depending on whether the surface was raised or lowered first on that side of the disturbance. As the disturbance displaces water throughout the depth of the water column, the wave must propagate as a shallow water wave, at least when it is in water shallower or equal to the depth where it was created (a shallow water wave is one which is affected by the bottom). Wind waves are generally caused in depths where the wave motion does not reach the bottom, and are therefore deep water waves until they reach shallow water where the motion does reach the bottom, when they transition to shallow water waves. The behaviour is affected by the scale depth more than the initial cause. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Tsunami Facts and Information on the Australian government website (I presume that this is a reliable source), which is consistent with some of your summary. Snowman (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks like a good summary. Simple, accurate and a reliable source. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
more later. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a tsunami moves into shallower water the wave is compressed and its speed decreases to below 80 miles per hour (130 km/h). Its wavelength diminishes to less than 12 miles (19 km), and its amplitude increases enormously.[33] Its behaviour then resembles a wind-generated wave, but the scale is vastly different and involves not just the surface layers of the sea but the whole water column. A trough precedes the wave and is the first thing to reach the coast, the sea draws back and leaves subtidal areas close to the shore exposed.

  • The velocity is proportional to square root of the depth, so the quoted 80 mph is connected with a specific depth. Similarly wave length is a function of velocity and therefore depth, and 12 miles would be related to a specific depth. It would probably be better to just say As a tsunami moves into shallower water the wave is compressed and its speed decreases, its wavelength diminishes and its amplitude increases enormously.
Those were figures given by the source but I have rephrased the sentence according to your suggestion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its behaviour resembles a wind-generated wave in shallow water at all times.
Altered. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A trough may precede the wave, but as far as I can make out from available sources this is not always the case. Sometimes a crest leads, sometimes a trough, depending on whether the water was displaced upwards or downward first in the initial disturbance. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Altered. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Currents:

A main deep ocean current flows through all the world's oceans and is known as the thermohaline circulation or global conveyor belt Check this, I think the thermohaline circulation includes surface currents. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are synonyms. See Thermohaline circulation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thermohaline circulation and global conveyer are synonyms, my point is that the Thermohaline circulation article and the illustrations of the TC suggest that warm surface currents such as the Gulf stream are part of it (TC). • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have altered the image caption. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section:Tides:

This is half the 24 hours and 50 minutes that the Moon takes to make a complete rotation of the Earth and return to the same position in the sky. Most people will think of a month as the time for the Moon to make a complete rotation of the Earth.

Good point. I have rephrased the sentence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note d: Unlike gravity, which decreases with the inverse square of the distance between the two bodies involved, the tide-raising force decreases with the inverse cube of the distance. appears to contradict the earlier statement Tides are the regular rise and fall in water level experienced by seas and oceans in response to the gravitational influences of the Moon and the Sun, and the effects of the Earth's rotation.

Removed note "d". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the statement The tidal flows of seawater are resisted by the water's inertia and can be altered by land masses. is sandwiched between parts of an explanation of the mechanism of tides. It should probably be moved to the next paragraph.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Ocean basins:

It floats on the liquid mantle below and is relatively thin, being broken into a number of tectonic plates. This suggests that there is some connection between the being thin and being broken up into tectonic plates, however there are also plate boundaries within continental masses, like the Great rift valley and the Himalayas.

What you say is true. Do you want me to change the wording? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about: "It floats on the liquid mantle below, is relatively thin, and is divided into a number of tectonic plates.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of these crustal movements, the oceans are gradually spreading with the continental land masses on either side becoming further apart, This suggests that either the planet is getting bigger, or the continents are getting smaller.

Probably the latter. The spreading is something like 1cm per year I believe, but over time this is significant. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the continents are not changing much except where for example the Indian subcontinent is pushing into Asia, Generally subduction zones will be reducing oceanic tectonic plates at to compensate for ridge expansion, so some oceans (Atlantic) are growing, at the expense of others, The Pacific is most likely to be taking up much of the slack along the ring of fire. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten this bit. Is it clearer now? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You might consider changing Near some of the boundaries between the land and sea, the slightly denser oceanic plates slide beneath the lighter continental plates by subduction and more deep oceanic trenches are formed, to Near some of the boundaries between the land and sea, the slightly denser oceanic plates slide beneath the continental plates and more subduction trenches are formed, which is slightly less repetitive. It is not a big issue. I think the section is sufficiently improved. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
more later, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Coasts:

Under their influence, the sand and shingle on the beach is in continual grinding motion. Not really continual.

Changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Sea level:

The variations in sea level over time are the result of changes in the oceanic crust, Perhaps the overall trend, but larger shorter term fluctuations due to changes in glaciation are mentioned in the next paragraph.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The final sentence indicates a rising trend, and as this is contrary to the very long term falling trend mentioned earlier in the same paragraph, a time scale should be mentioned.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Life in the sea:

Marine life is economically important to humans, especially the fish they catch and use for food, and provides support for the carbon cycle - needs clarification.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify major groups of animals by linking to whatever this is intended to mean (Phyla?)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Marine habitats:

The link for "open ocean: redirects to pelagic zone, which is not quite appropriate as a complement to coastal.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The parentheses around "horizontally" and "vertically" do not seem necessary.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Algae and plants:

Productivity is not necessarily higher in warmer waters; it is instead controlled mainly by upwelling of cold but mineral-rich waters and near rivers which bring nutrients leached from the soil. Unclear.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Animals and other marine life:

The pelagic zone between the surface of the water and the seabed contains myriad zooplankton drifting with the currents. Between the surface and seabed includes demersal zone.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not all planktonic organisms are tiny.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The extensive calcareous skeletons they extrude build up into coral reefs which engineer the seabed. "engineer" implies intelligent design, or at least intentional modification, perhaps not wholly appropriate in this context.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
more later • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Humans and the sea

Section: History:

First and second paragraphs - awkward prose - looks almost as if a bulleted list was reformatted to a string of sentences.

Before I rephrase it, are you happy with the content or do you think there is too much detail? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to the level of detail at present, but would probably not have any objection if a bit was trimmed or added either. The order could be adjusted a bit to be more strictly chronological, but I leave the logical arrangement to your discretion as long as it flows smoothly. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The latitude (a concentric line on a globe parallel with the equator) Latitude may be depicted by a concentric circle parallel to the equator, but what it is, is the angle between the equatorial plane and the radius to that point.

Changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section:Origins of oceanography and deep sea exploration:

Why Origins, or why is this section in history, while the following group are not? It would give more flexibility if the History header were to be eliminated, as many of the following sections have some history content.

Changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The battery-operated Mir submersibles developed by NOAA... Mir was a USSR-Finnish project, DSV Alvin was the US equivalent.

Removed NOAA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sections: Maritime law, Travel:

No comment.

Section: Trade:

Three main types of cargo, if break bulk is still to be included. Containerized cargo ≠ break bulk.

Clarified. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commodities are bulky goods in the form of liquids, powder or particles such as oil, grain, coal, ore, scrap metal, sand and gravel Not how I would define commodities. Looks like this should be referring to bulk cargo.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Food:

No comment.

Section: Leisure:

Beneath the surface, spearfishing and freediving are necessarily restricted to surface waters. Not clear what this is supposed to mean, or why it refers specifically to spearfishing and freediving but not pearl diving or scuba. In any case, pearl diving is not a leisure activity.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human eyes are not adapted for use underwater, but vision can be improved by wearing a diving mask. The possibilities for exploration of the submarine environment are further extended by the use of fins and snorkels, and scuba equipment allows underwater breathing and hence a longer time can be spent beneath the surface. Diving suits can be worn, and buoyancy can be adjusted through the use of weights. The depths that can be reached by divers and the length of time they can stay underwater is limited by the increase of pressure they experience as they descend and the need to prevent decompression sickness as they return to the surface. Recreational divers are advised to restrict themselves to depths of under 100 feet (30 m) beyond which the danger of nitrogen narcosis increases. Deeper dives can be made with specialised equipment and training. Is this level of detail appropriate? Compare with rest of section.

Trimmed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A new world record was set in 2006 when a US Navy diver descended to 2,000 feet (610 m) using an atmospheric diving suit. Not a leisure activity. Could go in section "Oceanography and deep exploration".

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
more later. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Power generation:

No comment.

Section: Extractive industries:

Is offshore diamond mining worth mentioning? It has been going on for a long time.

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Naval warfare.

No comment.

Section: Marine pollution:

The marine environment has self-cleansing properties and naturally occurring bacteria will act over time to remove the oil from the sea Some indication of the time scale needed for perspective.

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sections: Indigenous sea peoples, In culture:

No comment. Support inclusion of Rachel Carson quote as closing line.

Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Signing off for now, The article is improving consistently. I will keep it on my watchlist. If you would like me to go through it again at any stage leave a note on my talk page. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ UK Retail Price Index inflation figures are based on data from Clark, Gregory (2017). "The Annual RPI and Average Earnings for Britain, 1209 to Present (New Series)". MeasuringWorth. Retrieved June 11, 2022.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/October_2013&oldid=1153708045"