This article is about Australia's national floral emblem....also a weed in South Africa. We liked putting this together. Got a thorough GA review (thanks J Milburn!) - all input appreciated. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is definitely close to FA status. A few rather random points:
The lead section is rather short. A bit more of a summary of the later sections of the article would be useful, e.g. expand a little on the native distribution and habitat, use as an ornamental plant, presence on stamps(?).
There's nothing on the structure of individual flowers; the text goes straight from "Each inflorescence is made up of 50 to 100 tiny flowers" to "The later developing pods" – I would have expected at least something on the flowers themselves inbetween.
I was surprised that nitrogen fixation wasn't at least mentioned as a factor in its ability to grow in poor soils and its tendency to spread. (Strangely it's not mentioned in the Acacia article either, although a search for "acacia nitrogen fixing fixation" throws up many good sources.)
that's a tricky one - as there is always the dilemma over how much and what to have in a genus (vs. species) article. Surprised it's not in genus article. Will take a look around and digest.....and see what I come up with.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC) good stuff on N fixation found and added Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would mention the season ("spring", "summer", etc.) as well as the months in appropriate places – these are helpful to readers in the "other" hemisphere.
Peter coxhead (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm very happy to support the article now; some interesting new information added! Peter coxhead (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and thanks for the constructive suggestions - enjoyed finding out some cool stuff Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
What do you mean by "Habit" in the caption? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the description section, "phyllodes" links via a redirect to "petiole", and then the lead of that article defines petiole as "the stalk attaching the leaf blade to the stem". Later in the article there is some explanation of what happens in acacias, but all in all i found the situation a bit unsatisfactory. The article talks about phyllodes all the way through which, while technically correct, is a bit troublesome when the reader tries to remember that we are functionally talking about leaves. Can you at least add a phrase explaining what a phyllodes is, when it first occurs in the body text?
I was surprised phyllode was a redirect. Oh well, expanded a little and linked a bit differently now. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"groups of 40 to 80 in axillary 2.5–9 cm (1–3 1⁄2 in)-long racemes". Can anything be done to create more of a picture for the reader here, since most will know the meaning of neither "axillary" nor "racemes".
this is hard - have removed some redundant text and expanded "axillary" - raceme is hard..... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The later developing pods are flattish,..." Confusing - where's the text about the earlier developing pods?
"They are released once the pods are fully ripe in December and January". I feel this would sound better if written as "They are released in December and January, when the pods are fully ripe"
The text about flowering is tricky. It starts in the second last sentence of the first para, then continues in the second para, so the para break seems wrongly placed. Then there's the rather confusing overlap of months, so it seems a bit as though the article is telling us two different versions of when flowering occurs. Is it all year round with a peak in July-August, or is it July to November?
whoops - split section in wrong place. tweaked now. the buds begin all year but most abort, except those initiated between November and May, which go on to mature between July and November. Would switching the order help? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Something weird with the various "and"s here: "It hosts bacteria, known as rhizobia, that form root nodules and where they metabolise and make nitrogen available in organic form and thus help the plant grow in poor soils."
"Honeybees, native bees, ants and flies also visit nectaries, but generally only one or a few and do not come into contact with the flowers during this activity". only one or a few what - bees and ants, or nectaries? This sentence isn't that great - the but...and construction seems a bit clumsy.
On reflection, I think the "generally only one or a few" is not really needed so I removed it. --Melburnian (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those huge fractions in the imperial measurement conversions look really ugly, and I feel they impair readability - are there any other options?
at a previous FAC on Epacris impressa, fractions rather than decimal points were recommended for inches. I have removed the conversions where it gets down to mm. For some reason these larger-sized numerals are preferred than the more classical-looking ones. I am finding it difficult to please everybody with this.. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link or meaning for "naturalised"?
That's all for now. Maybe another day this week... hamiltonstone (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...and become problematic in bushland near Hobart...." Problematic? What does that mean? I note the paragraph never uses the word "weed". Is that what is essentially meant? Maybe that word should be used...
Aha...reading too many secondary sources...changed to 'weedy', which is what it means Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think i have anything else. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hamiltonstone thanks for the input - sounds like you still feel a little underwhelmed by the prose, so if you see anything else let me know - I'll try and rustle up interest in another copyeditor. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, just haven't had time to read something end to end. Happy to support. I do have a question: in the section on cultivation, the text says it is short-lived, but there's nothing in the description about its lifespan. Is there anything in the literature other than "short-lived"? hamiltonstone (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Annoyingly I couldn't find anything. Wattles are generally fast-growing and short-lived plants - suspect 15 years give or take 5 years but can't say this without a source Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found a source for 15 to 30 years add added it.--Melburnian (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
FN37 and 41 have very broad page ranges - possible to narrow?
Note -- "Several species of honeyeater, including the white-naped, yellow-faced,[34] New Holland,[35] and occasionally white-plumed, crescent,[34] white-naped honeyeaters and Eastern spinebills have been observed foraging". Guys, you've twice mentioned white-naped honeyeaters in this sentence, so are they regular or occasional foragers? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oops, missed that - I rejigged some stuff there and left a bit. fixed now Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Floydianτ¢ 21:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As part of my continued push towards a Featured Topic on Ontario's 400-series highways, I present Highway 403 - one of the first freeways planned for Ontario, but also one of the most disjointed and recently completed. This article just passed an A-Class review, so it should be relatively problem free. Cheers, Floydianτ¢ 21:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - all OK
images have been thoroughly checked during ACR (thanks for that).
images are PD or CC "own work" or Canadian Crown Copyright and have source/author information - OK.
map information includes source data - OK.
(fixed one tiny, redundant commons category myself).
(Just fyi: the article talkpage still shows "initiate the nomination" in the FAC-template. Maybe it still needs updating (or something went wrong during the nomination) - resolved, slow bot). GermanJoe (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dough4872, Fredddie, and Rschen7754: Since you three reviewed this at ACR, I'd appreciate your input to hopefully help move this nom along. - Floydianτ¢ 18:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. When I reviewed the article at ACR, I was really impressed by the history section. Hopefully others feel the same way. –Fredddie™ 21:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Based on my review at ACR, I feel that this article meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 00:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review—I did not review this at ACR, but I see that this article could use a source review, so here it is. Several of the comments below are more suggestions to consider than actual issues. (Note: a spotcheck was done at ACR as is required of newer promotions there.)
FN1: this is listed in full below the footnotes. Should this footnote be shortened? Also, I wouldn't capitalize "and" in the title; that's one of those words that is normally in lowercase in title case unless it is the first word.
I just shortened this one, linking it to the full citation below, which I tweaked for formatting. Imzadi 1979→ 15:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FN5: I'd swap the hyphen in the Google Maps title to a colon to match the usual convention on titles and subtitles. This suggestion would also apply to other examples where a title and subtitle are separated by a hyphen or dash instead of a colon.
I took care of this as well. Imzadi 1979→ 15:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FN6, etc: I'd drop the volume and issue number. Those are normally not necessary to locate a newspaper since the date there is the important part. Also, the {{cite news}} template doesn't put the volume and issue number with the page number, unlike {{cite journal}}, so that information is oddly separated.
I took care of this as well. Imzadi 1979→ 15:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FN7: the |section=News isn't needed with a full page number, and it appears the template is treating that as a section of an article, not the section of the newspaper. (For regular sections of a paper, there is |department= instead.) This would also apply to FN17 and others.
I took care of this as well. Imzadi 1979→ 15:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FN10: [3] is a dead link. Fortunately, it's in the Wayback Machine at [4]. Additionally, I would make sure to add that it was printed on pages 26 and 31, which are the page numbers printed on the pages where it appears. (Page numbers from the PDF file's pagination don't help readers looking for an offline copy.)
I took care of this as well. Imzadi 1979→ 15:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FN12: it would help if this were wikilinked to the location of the full citation. I've found {{harvnb}} and |ref=harv to be very useful in that regard. (I don't use {{sfn}} because that omits the reference tags. havnb gets placed within the tags, and then it will appear along with the other references when I use either of the scripts that segregates an article's references in the edit window.)
I took care of this as well. Imzadi 1979→ 15:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FN13: in {{cite journal}}, I think you should use |journal= Proceedings of the... Convention and |title=Ontario, and maybe you should spell out the full title of Proceedings of the <what?> Convention.
FN16: full citation please?
My guess is that it is [5] --Rschen7754 05:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FN 27 is also similarly shortened without a fully expanded citation. Unfortunately, that one is even more vague than FN 16, I've left both of these for now. Imzadi 1979→ 15:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FN62: I wouldn't use {{cite journal}} for this one. Instead, I'd use {{cite book}}, and then |volume=vol. 1. When additional text like that is passed in to the |volume= parameter, it drops the boldface and just makes it clear that it is a volume number being referenced. For whatever reason, in this case, {{cite journal}} is separating the volume and page number, so the clue that the bolded number next to another one is absent.
The good news is that all of the sources used pass the sniff test for reliability (official government documents, articles from reputable newspapers, maps from recognizable cartographers), so in my opinion, it's just a matter of a little polish on formatting to make this good article better. Imzadi 1979→ 21:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as everything seems mostly in order, with acknowledgement of the issues Imzadi noted above. It seems that the nominator has taken off for several weeks, so I'm not sure what that means for this nomination. Maybe someone else from the road project can make the adjustments? The only thing that struck me as odd in the writing, and maybe this is normal for road articles, is the free use of "freeway" as a synonym for "highway". It first made me retrace my steps to see if some other road had been mentioned that was being referred to as "the freeway" while Highway 403 was being called "the highway". Failing that, I went off on an expedition to discover that the terms are interchangeable, which I never knew. I always thought of them as regional variances of the same concept, not necessarily words that you switch around to refer to the same thing. I'm not really asking for it to be changed, but maybe someone can explain the editorial rationale. --Laser brain(talk) 00:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to step in if needed for some of the minor issues (please drop me a note if I forget). --Rschen7754 01:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to your question, "freeway" and "highway" are not necessarily interchangeable, but in this case both are applicable, as Ontario Highway 403 is a freeway, and a (provincial) highway. --Rschen7754 05:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since Floydian is temporarily unavailable, I've also done the remaining minor formatting fixes above. Pretty much, all that's left is the full citations for footnotes 16 and 27.
That leaves a question I have about the shortened footnotes in general. FN 25 is the only footnote to that citation. The same goes for FN 26. If this were my article, I'd expand those two footnotes to be the full citation because they are not repeated. Assuming we also found the full citations for FN 16 and 27, that means only one source is left shortened, for FN 1 and 14. I don't think it would be bad to repeat that citation only twice in the footnotes, so if this were my article I were working on, I'd just do away with shortening any footnotes. Imzadi 1979→ 15:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can leave any such tweaks to post-FAC, so will promote shortly -- tks all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I know, no further edits, but I just wanted to leave a note of thanks for my fellow editors for making the necessary adjustments in my absence. Drop a note on the article talk page if there are any further issues and I'll try to fix them within a few days. - Floydianτ¢ 20:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a rather arrogant but massively talented cricketer who had a dispute with the authorities and dropped out of the England team. Not KP, but Jack Crawford who played in the first two decades of the 20th century. A somewhat forgotten story but an interesting one. This article has been undergoing work for a long time now. Jhall1 and I have been picking at it for the best part of 3 years. It first reached GA in 2011 but the availability of some more information prompted some expansion, and it has had a talk-page review from some very talented editors. Any further comments are more than welcome. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually put this one in. I've switched back to one for which I know a little more. How's that one? Sarastro1 (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's definitely PD, at least in the US. I wouldn't have uploaded the full resolution if I had doubts. I'll update the information page if you're not sure about the book. We can go with "Unknown" for the creator. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That new image is okay copyright wise, but the old one was clearer. Do you want me to clean up the source information on that one, or...? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, forgot this. I'd be grateful if you could do that! Sarastro1 (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, how's this look? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks! Switched back to that now. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything else is okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Just that one image nit pick to deal with, and that's essentially done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Cliftonian
Great article for which I constituted part of the recent informal peer review. Just had another look through and just a few nitpicks stick out, none of which affect my support.
"When the dispute arose, he sent a telegram" Who? Crawford or Trumper? (I guess the former but just to be sure)
Did the rumours about becoming a farmer say he was going to become a rancher in Australia or go back to England to do it? (or elsewhere?)
Unknown, unfortunately. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When we say both marriages seem to have been childless it may be good to qualify this by saying according to whom they seem to be so (Hart?)
We refer in the last section to an "eight-year absence" from English cricket, but wasn't he actually absent for ten years?
Took out "eight-year". Sarastro1 (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well done again Sarastro and Jhall1. Very enjoyable, engaging piece on a man I had never heard of. —Cliftonian(talk) 16:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged for all your help. Thanks. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – from another participant in the recent ad hoc review. It was clearly a fine article then and has been further refined as a result of reviewers' comments. Meets all FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 18:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help and kind words. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review:
Page range formats should be standardised (e.g. compare ref 6 with ref 35 and others)
ISBNs: The 1988 Benny Green book has ISBN978-0-71262-080-2. For the Wynne-Thomas book it's 978-0-60055-782-1
Otherwise, all sources look appropriate and reliable, and are properly and consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got these, I think. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support subject to minor source format fixes. I was one of the "talented" editors who gave this a recent talkpage review, having first reviewed it three years ago at an earlier stage in its development. The article is now in good shape and I'm happy to support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support and your earlier help. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – As one of the talk page reviewers I'm not sure "talented" is the right word for me, but I see no further problems with the article worth commenting on; in fact, there were few to begin with. Nice to see this editor back producing quality articles for FAC to look at. I trust that the needed source tweaks will be made and will not let them stop me from supporting the article, which is a fine piece of work. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and your earlier review. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just how powerful was Lord Alverstone?:
One thing has been niggling at me for a couple of days. At one point we say about Lord Alverstone: "Starting in 1909, he left out several professionals." As not only the president of the club but also the Lord Chief Justice, he was obviously very influential, but did he have quite the dictatorial powers that this unqualified statement would imply? I know it's properly cited and comes from one of the sources. But later on, we say: "Alverstone wrote to Crawford that the Surrey committee fully supported Leveson Gower's decision to omit Rushby and Lees." OK, this specific case doesn't necessarily disprove the earlier statement, but it does suggest that Alverstone couldn't run the club as a one-man band and had to take some notice of the committee and club captain (and since Leveson Gower was an England selector he will have had a fair amount of clout himself), and possibly of the secretary too. JH (talk page) 17:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've toned this down a touch to make it less clear who was pulling the strings, as I think you are probably right. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent article. it is well-referenced and it meets the FA criteria. --Carioca (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- Well I guess there's some kind of consensus apparent here but pls just check duplinks before I close... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got these I think, apart from one linked to a glossary. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
HMS Formidable was one of the six armoured carriers that the UK began building before World War 2. She had a very active role during the war which included service in the Mediterranean, Home, Far Eastern and Pacific Fleets against the Italians, Germans, Vichy French and Japanese. Despite her armoured flight deck, she was badly damaged by German dive bombers. She was worn out by her wartime service and was scrapped as uneconomical to repair in 1953 after a brief period ferrying troops about shortly after the end of the war. The article passed a thorough MilHist A-class review last month and hopefully doesn't require much additional work to pass the FAC criteria. As always, I'm looking for AmEng spelling in a BritEng article and any jargon that should be explained better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is a very comprehensive article - nice work. I have the following comments:
"built for the Royal Navy before World War II" - seems a bit confusing given that the next sentence states she was completed in 1940 (replace 'built' with 'ordered' or similar perhaps?)
"the ship was unable to engage the Japanese fleet when it attacked British forces in the Indian Ocean raid." - not sure that 'unable' is the right word: the British fleet didn't engage the Japanese due to chance and miscalulations rather an inability to attack (though it's just as well that it didn't given how badly the British aircraft would have been outclassed)
Agreed. It would have been a disaster for the Brits if they'd actually encountered the five Japanese carriers.
"was determined not to simply modify the previous Ark Royal design up to the full limit allowed by the Second London Naval Treaty" - some context is needed here I think
I really don't want to get into this because it's a discussion better saved for the class article, but I've clarified that the Ark Royal design was unarmoured which I hope will suffice. If not, please detail what exactly you think should be explained more thoroughly.
More generally, the first para of the 'Background and description' section should be tweaked so that it explicitly states that it's talking about Formidable's design - this is implied, but never stated.
Clarified that it's about the class, and not limited to Formidable.
"The ship could accommodate up to 54 aircraft rather than the intended 36 after the adoption of "outriggers" on the flight deck" - were these part of the initial design?
No, clarified.
Do sources state when this change occurred? It would have improved the ship's capabilities quite considerably Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I've added a note giving the most likely date.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The additional crewmen, maintenance personnel" - how many men did these add to her crew?
Uncertain, I can't find a figure for Formidable in particular. Illustrious had around 2,000 in 1945, but since they had different AA outfits by then I can't use that figure here.
"During the Evacuation of Greece, Formidable provided air cover for Convoy GA-15 on 29 April" - just to clarify, was this her only role in the operation? (lots of the Mediterranean Fleet seems to have operated around Crete to cover the evacuation)
It was her primary role, but I expect her aircraft provided air cover as much as they could.
"The ship arrived at Colombo, Ceylon, on 24 May " - I don't think that this date can be right given that the Indian Ocean Raid took place in early April; should this be 24 March?
Good catch.
"Somerville received word " - suggest replacing 'word' (which sounds like a rumour) with 'intelligence' (which is presumably what he received - most likely decoded signals?)
Quite likely, but neither McCart nor Rohwer specify. I can try to hunt it down if you think that it's important.
The tweaked wording does the job Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"when the Japanese failed to appear" - sounds a bit odd - it implies that the Japanese were expected to stick to whatever schedule the British estimated they'd follow
They did expect just that.
Yeah, but this wording is the British POV, which isn't needed in this context. I'd suggest tweaking it. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"A Royal Air Force Consolidated Catalina flying boat spotted them" - what's meant by 'them' here?
The Japanese are mentioned at the end of the previous sentence.
Fair enough Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" As in Husky, their role was to protect the invasion fleet from interference by the Italian Navy" - perhaps note that this didn't end up being needed given that the Italian Navy surrendered to the Allies?
"She later sailed to Gibraltar, arriving on 21 September to begin a refit that lasted until 1 January 1945" - did the ship receive special modifications for tropical service, and service against the Japanese, at this time as was common for RN ships selected for the British Pacific Fleet?
I'd suggest breaking the long 'Pacific operations' section into several sections/sub-sections
"The Zero first strafed the flight deck before any of Formidable's guns could open fire and then turned sharply to dive into the forward flight deck despite the ship's hard turn to starboard. The fighter released a bomb shortly before it would have impacted the deck and was destroyed by the bomb's blast. Some of the ship's guns hit the Zero as it turned at an altitude of 700 feet (213.4 m) and set it afire, but they failed to destroy it before it could dive into the ship" - these sentences are a bit overly-complex and confusing (it's not clear whether the fighter struck the ship, or was destroyed by its own bomb beforehand). I'd suggest trying to get this down to a sentence or two (the caption of the photo also says that the ship was struck by the kamikaze)
"This was filled by wood and concrete and covered by thin steel plates tack-welded to the deck so that she was able to operate aircraft by 17:00 and steam at a speed of 24 knots (44 km/h; 28 mph). " - as this sentence is about the repairs, I'd suggest leading off with some explicit wording rather than the unclear 'this'
"in concert with the Cockatoo Island Dockyard" - what's meant by this? Was she repaired at Cockatoo Island as well as Garden Island (which would have been unusual given that Cockatoo Island could only really handle cruiser-sized ships and smaller), or did Cockatoo Island repair parts of the ship/contribute workmen?
See how it reads now.
Looks good, though I've slightly tweaked the wording Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to say more about the condition of the ship when she was inspected after the war? From memory, the combination of the attacks of Crete and Okinawa were found to have inflicted severe damage on her basic structures Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only specifics that I've been able to find were a mention that her boiler superheaters needed to be retubed (a six-month job) in Friedman.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thorough review, Nick. See if I'm missed anything or if my corrects don't quite suit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support My above comments have now been addressed Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - all OK (UK Crown Copyright, USGov).
Sources and authors provided - OK.
While IWM photos are offered under a non-commercial license, their usage as free "Crown Copyright" material is within our guidelines (afaik), all such photos are tagged appropriately - OK.
fixed 2 damaged IWM templates on Commons (missing "oid" parameter) - cache needs to be purged, but OK. GermanJoe (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking the images over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the ship was unable to engage the Japanese fleet" Perhaps a hint of "why" should be inserted.
I think that perhaps the lede could do with some simplification to avoid these sorts of issues. Refits and the like really aren't appropriate to the lede.
"Diego Suarez ... Madagascar" That place is probably worth its own link at some point, especially as there is a likelihood of confusion with Diego Garcia
Done.
Background
" to simply modify the previous Ark Royal design up to the full limit " This is somewhat vague.
Simplified.
While it is a minor point, some sort of statement we are talking about Formidable in the first pp would be good.
" that much weight that high" Perhaps change one that to "so"
Good idea.
Footnote 1, especially the word "faired", could use increased clarity. I'm not sure you are consistent in your use of the plural in "round-down" both in text and here.
Linked the term, although I'm not sure what else to do to improve its clarity. Good catch on round-down.
"to support these aircraft " Unless we are talking about the Corsairs, and only the Corsairs, I suspect this could be "the aircraft" or even the whole phrase made "aircraft support facilities". It strikes me this might be a better place to mention the crew's complement.
It would be if I had solid number for her later complement.
Were the modifications you mention, such as the flattening of the round-downs, made at the time of commissioning or later? This seems unclear.
Clarified.
Armament
"she had exchanged one octuple "pom-pom" mount for a quadruple mount and she had a" the double "she had" s reads oddly
Fixed
Battle
"her air group only numbered 13 Fulmars, 10 Albacores and 4 Swordfish" This is mildly problematical as you have not yet specified whether this took place before or after her expansion of aircraft capacity, thus the "only" could be better supported.
Her initial aircraft capacity was 36 aircraft, so I think that the "only" is appropriate.
A brief mention of the immediate fate of Vittorio Veneto might be helpful.
Done.
"for the loss of one Fulmar forced to land aboard the carrier" My impression as a lay reader was "well, that's the general idea, isn't it?
Clarified.
I would make it clearer that the Belfast repairs were for the stern.
Really? The location of the damage is in the prior sentence and should be pretty clear, IMO. Mentioning the stern twice in quick succession would read oddly, I think.
Yes, I agree.
Indian Ocean
I would make it clearer which way she went from Sierra Leone to Ceylon.
The end of the previous para says that she was in Belfast so I don't really think that I need to spell it out.
You state in the lede that Madagascar was Vichy-occupied. This isn't backed up in the body.
Done.
The word "interfere" is used three times in fairly close succession.
Fixed.
Iceland, Norway
"Six days later she was in Scapa Flow to begin patrols to Iceland in company with the battleships Howe and Anson and the American carrier Ranger for the next three weeks." I dislike using repeated phrases that rely on a stated point in time. Better to give a date.
If the firm date was separated by more text I'd agree that there was the possibility for confusion, but given that the date is given in the previous sentence I don't really think that that's much of an issue.
"The ship arrived at Scapa Flow" The last ship referred to was German.
Good catch
" The loss of their heavy anti-aircraft guns and radar sets" Could you make this clearer? I imagine they were on other ships of the fleet?
I'm a little at a loss here because the cruisers and battleships were the most effective AA platforms in the BPF so their detachment did mean a real loss of defensive capabilities. See how it reads now.
"The bombardment significantly reduced Japanese aerial activity on 5 May, " Presumably, against the Japanese
I don't understand what you mean.
" to give her extra time for repairs in Sydney" Extra than what? Was the rest of the BFP scheduled to go there?
The entire BPF was scheduled to withdraw for repairs/refits/etc. on either 25 or 29 May.
"1.5 inch" Do we need a metric?
Nope, converted in the last sentence in the armour section.
What does the 67 in the title mean?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pennant number, linked in the infobox. Thanks for your review and check to see if my changes work for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done, as usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
FN6, 8: which Chesneau?
FNs19 and 20: publication titles should be italicized, also FN19 should use endash
Grubb Street or Grub Street? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I made a few copyedits; feel free to change them.
Don't like the informal abbreviation of BRF or PoW, especially because the latter is used only three times and can be easily spelled out.
This is really more a style thing, but I've spelled out the latter.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Royal Navy's 1936 Naval Programme" -- red link this?
"A Royal Air Force Consolidated Catalina flying boat spotted them just three and a half hours ..." -- where?
"En route she provided distant cover against a Japanese attack ..." -- what is "distant cover"?
Legitimate question, but I'm amused that you're the first to bring it up as it is actually rather jargony. That said, I'm having problems thinking of a way to rephrase the sentence. Done, but see how it reads as I'm not really satisfied with the change in wording.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The commander of 1842 Squadron was killed on the first day of operations while strafing buildings at Nobara airfield." -- what squadron? Am I missing something? Ed[talk][majestic titan] 08:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you may be. The squadron is mentioned earlier, with a link, so I'm not sure what you mean. I think that I've addressed all of your other concerns. Thanks for reviewing this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I missed it. Your other changes look fine. Support. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 02:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I reviewed this at the A-class review and my concerns were addressed there. Parsecboy (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm trying hard to make sure The Boat Race articles are all represented and of a decent quality. This, the 1993 version, is a personal favourite of mine, but I've hopefully done the right things before coming here. I created it as a stub a while back and took it through to Good article status. I asked for a peer review and received rather lame results (no disrespect to the two editors who made a handful of comments, but it wasn't quite what I'd hoped for), so it seems there's no other course of action other than to nominate it here, for better or for worse. It was a fast race, it featured new technology in the blades and some bloke called M. Pinsent was a participant. A losing one. Rare. Thanks, as ever, to anyone who contributes to this process and to the time and energy expended in wading through the article. Regardless of the outcome, it's always very much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Oxford_University_Coat_Of_Arms.svg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I think. Thanks for the interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was the reviewer at GAN and thought it would end up here! It was close then, and seems to have had a tweak or two to strengthen it further since then. I've made a few copy edits: please feel free to amend or revert if you don't like them. A couple of comments:
"Bangert, Gillard and Behrens"; as we've given the first names of Pinsent and Gore, (and as it's before the table) we should give the full names here.
The lead seems a little thin to me. It's not a massive article, so it might just be personal taste (it's a part of writing articles that I find quite difficult personally, so mine tend to be quite long) ... YMMV, to borrow Dank's phrase.
but on the day itself they opted to remain with the macon blades. What I know about rowing you could fit on the head of a pin; what do weather conditions have to with the choice of blade?
The cleaver blades are more susceptible to striking the surface of the water if the conditions were rough, the macon blades are more... forgiving. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
while Oxford welcomed back five former Boat Race rowers That strikes me as editorialising; can it be re-phrased?
Is there anything more to be said about the creatine supplements? Was this controversial? Had they been used in previous Boat Racs? Were they used in subsequent Boat Races?
In all honesty, it was just a nugget of journalism that I discovered. I have looked around for other sources and can't find anything particularly interesting, it was just that the supplements came to prominence in the previous year's Olympics and weren't illegal... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for taking the time to provide some comments. I'll certainly continue to work on them to your satisfaction. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. It was only nitpicking really. It's an excellent article and I'm certainly satisfied with the changes you've made, so I'm happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – One in a series of what I hope will be a featured topic one day. The nominator clearly has an educated interest in the subject which benefits hugely by his admirable expertise. I have read through this fine article and can see no underlying issues. I suppose one, although purely aesthetically, would be the ugly white space on an iPad between the Pinsent photo and the text. I suspect this will be down to the device and not the software, but worth a mention, if only to see if it is a wiki thing or not. Cassiantotalk 10:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your interest and kind comments. I'm not sure there's anything I can do about the whitespace other than move the Pinsent image up alongside the text preceding the table. There'd be even more whitespace by the table then, but that may be preferable to whitespace between a table and an image? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – this is a fine article, and I hope it will be one of a complete family of FAs in due course. A few quibbles, though, before I add my support:
You vacillate between the Americanese/tabloidese false title and a respectable English construction with the requisite definite articles. Thus, "… was Canadian Olympic gold medallist and former Oxford Blue Mark Evans…" and "Cambridge Boat Club president Behrens claimed…" (bad) but "The journalist David Miller…" and "Cambridge's boat club president Behrens…" (good).
Lead: "…saw changes in both their rowers…" as they have more than two rowers, I think this might be better phrased without the "both".
"They put right a lot of mistakes the have made in the past" – …they have made…, I assume.
not clear why "Mile Post" is capitalised but "finishing post" isn't.
Thanks Tim. Am away from suitable editing tools e.g. A proper keyboard and mouse, until Thursday so I will get to your comments as soon as I can. Thanks for your time and interest! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, found some time and some internets... so I've addressed your first three comments, but as to your fourth, even the official website is inconsistent in its capitalisation of "finishing post" but always capitalises "Mile Post". I don't really mind either way, consistency is a good thing I agree, but if the RS are split on it, who knows? What do you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, did you have any more to add before I look at closing this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I wasn't paying proper attention. Very happy to support, and not fussed about the capitalisation of posts and content to leave it to the nominator to decide. Tim riley talk 07:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
You include an issue number for most Times refs but not all - why?
Probably an oversight or they aren't provided in the sources I have. I've "synthesised" the missing one. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Missing page numbers for FN17, 26, 28
Not provided in the sources I have. Will seek. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is my (first) contribution to Wikipedia's commemoration of the First World War. It concerns an affair that was something of a cause célèbre at the start of the war but has since been somewhat forgotten, other than occasional flashes of interest - it was covered briefly by the BBC earlier this year. It concerns the brief and unsuccessful career of the first German spy to be shot in Britain during the war (and the first person executed in the Tower of London for 167 years). I've been able to make use of archive material and contemporary news reports to document the story of Carl Hans Lody in, I think, probably greater detail than anyone has managed before in print. The centenary of his death is coming up on 6 November 2014; I'm hoping to request that this should be the featured article of the day. Given the short timeframe, I've taken the unusual step of bringing this article directly to FAC. I've aimed to write it from the outset as an FA-quality article, drawing my experience as the author of numerous Featured and Good Articles. Prioryman (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some passing thoughts from Bencherlite:
The article uses a mixture of "First World War" and "World War I" (but "Second World War" only) - best to stick to one format throughout for both wars.
Good point, I've amended this. Prioryman (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you need to wikilink London / Berlin / other major European cities (per WP:OVERLINK)?
I've been advised to (see below)... Prioryman (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prioryman: I think the suggestion was to say "London, England" as opposed to "London", and Cliftonian doesn't mention wikilinks. BencherliteTalk 21:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bencherlite is correct. Wikilinks were not what I meant. I'm sorry for not being clearer. —Cliftonian(talk) 21:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed a couple of dab links - you might want to check I had the right targets - but I wasn't sure which "Halle" you need (end of the first paragraph of the body of the article)
Thanks for that, I found the right Halle. Prioryman (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I have time for at the mo. BencherliteTalk 17:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
some passing thoughts from Auntieruth55:
in addition to the above from Bencherlite...There are a couple of red links in there, and I think, generally, that we should at least have a brief explanation or a stub for those. Not trying to make up a lot of work for you, but it would require very little, actually.
Good point, I'll see what I can do. Prioryman (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
appropriate punctuation between paragraphs and indented quotes when you have his description as a south German....
OK, added a colon. Prioryman (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
some word order examples:
On 8 May 1914, the director of 'N', Fritz Prieger, Fritz Prieger, then director of 'N', (consistency with previous mention of the first director)to
Amended as suggested. Prioryman (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
travel restrictions were imposed that prevented foreigners leaving without travel documents to travel restrictions prevented foreigners from leaving Germany without proper documents (travel is repetitive, also, it's a wordy sentence). Also, in this section you mention the security features, etc., but I think that most American passports until the 1920s did not have photographs. Since you make a point of saying that there were no security features (such as those we use today), you might clarify this.
Amended as suggested. Prioryman (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought, generally, that it was an excellent article. Probably you'll want to continue tweaking it, to reduce some wordiness and other readability issues such as those I've described.
I'll look forward to re-reading it later. auntieruth(talk) 19:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - (all Done) just a few points (lead), i haven't read the whole article yet.
", including Americans – real or otherwise – " - misses an ending comma. However i think the whole clause could be removed. It's enough to say, that foreigners in general came under suspicion.
Fair enough, done. Prioryman (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Nearly twenty years later, the government of Nazi Germany declared him to be a national hero and [became the subject of memorials]" - the second part needs a new subject (last subject was the government itself).
"During World War II, however, his gravestone in East London was destroyed by Luftwaffe bombing." - this little piece of irony seems trivial and out of place as final lead sentence (after all even the British acknowledged his courage).
I've amended it a bit, but the irony is obvious - that the Nazis lauded him as a national hero yet (albeit accidentally) managed to drop a bomb on his grave. Prioryman (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reads more neutral now with a wider context. GermanJoe (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use PD-US as copyright tag for images, the template is too vague to show a clear copyright situation (just fyi, already changed them myself). GermanJoe (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for doing that. Prioryman (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think this meets the standards. Cheers —Cliftonian(talk) 19:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cliftonian
Gave this a full-through in the morning as a preparation for a thorough review.
Infobox
Do we know when/where/by whom this photograph of Lody was taken? If not, we should probably remove the caption beneath the picture—just saying "Carl Hans Lody" doesn't really add anything, it's clear who this is
It appears, as far as I've been able to determine, to be a police photograph - presumably taken during the time between his arrest and execution. Prioryman (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have to use the "birth name" field if it is the same as the name at the top (my understanding is that this is for middle names or names that have been changed).
Many readers will not know what a Oberleutnant zur See is. I think a footnote next to it giving the equivalent British and American ranks would be a concise and unobtrusive way to remedy this
Perhaps put that his Iron Cross, Second Class was posthumous?
I believe we usually put the country along with the city in the infobox, even if it's clear. I don't see how putting "Berlin, Germany" and "London, England" would hurt.
Lead
Don't think we need the first comma after "Inglis"
"but was orphaned" I'm not sure about this usage of "but"—the second part of this sentence doesn't disagree with the first
Two sentences in the first paragraph start "After ..." Recommend adding some variation
The lead is a little too detailed in places (for example I'm not sure it's necessary to specify his wife came from Omaha, NE).
"Americans – real or otherwise –" I agree with the above comment that "real or otherwise" is not necessary. The point is that Americans and other foreigners were under suspicion.
"He decided to travel to Ireland" → "He travelled to Ireland". Also put a comma after "Ireland"
"to an address in Stockholm" perhaps "to a Stockholm address"?
"that was known to be" by whom? Suggest rewording to "that the British knew to be"
"All of his subsequent communications with that address were intercepted by Post Office censors." Don't need "All of" and I don't think we need "Post Office" either ("intercepted by censors" is clear enough in my opinion)
"without using invisible ink, code or any other means of concealment" just saying "without any means of concealment" is enough I think
"decided to allow him" → "allowed him"
"in an investigation that lasted less than a day." → "in less than a day."
"He did not attempt to deny that he was a German spy, and his bearing was widely praised as forthright and courageous by the British press and even by the police and MO5(g) officers who had tracked him down." Suggest splitting this long sentence after "German spy":
"He did not attempt to deny that he was a German spy. His bearing was widely praised as forthright and courageous by the British press, and even by the police and MO5(g) officers who had tracked him down."
" and became the subject of memorials, eulogies and commemorations in Germany" you need to add "he" before "became" to make this sentence make sense. I would also substitute a semicolon for "and".
Perhaps end by saying that his gravestone was destroyed by Luftwaffe bombing, but that his body remains buried in East London?
Thanks for the suggestions, I've implemented them all. Prioryman (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the first lot, continuing —Cliftonian(talk) 15:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early life and career
I copy-edited throughout here.
Does Boghardt speculate as to why the Stolzes may not have liked the match? Likewise does he give any details regarding their whirlwind romance? What attracted them to each other?
Unfortunately he doesn't. I'm fairly sure, actually, that he didn't have access to the newspaper reports I used. I might drop him an email and ask his opinion. Prioryman (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
""Burchard" was later identified as a German agent" by whom?
The source doesn't say - presumably by MI5. Prioryman (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well probably clear from context anyway. —Cliftonian(talk) 18:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth did he sign a letter as "Nazi"?! I thought this might be vandalism but it seems he indeed did. How extraordinary. Explanation for this would be great.
Ah, thanks for reminding me about that. It's a familiar version of "Ignatz". Not surprisingly it's a usage that has fallen into disfavour. I've added an explanatory footnote (I meant to do that earlier but forgot). Prioryman (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"He had sought in both "to convey to a belligerent enemy of Great Britain, namely Germany" information relating to the UK's defences and preparations for war." I suggest reviewing this sentence as it doesn't make sense.
I changed this to "In both letters, the charge sheet stated, Lody had sought "to convey to a belligerent enemy of Great Britain, namely Germany" information relating to the UK's defences and preparations for war." Prioryman (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We refer here to "Iron Cross, second class", with lower case letters, and in the infobox with upper case letters. Either in fine but we should be consistent.
I've made both upper case. Prioryman (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why was there reluctance on the part of the German authorities to recognise Lody?
Unclear, but I would guess (speculatively) that the post-war authorities of the Weimar Republic were not too keen on promoting the deeds of their predecessors. The German Revolution of 1918-19 marked a pretty decisive break between the imperial and republican regimes. Prioryman (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Carl_Hans_Lody.jpg needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died more than 70 years ago?
As I've said above, it appears to be by an anonymous police photographer. "If the work is anonymous or a collaborative work (e.g. an encyclopedia), it is typically in the public domain 70 years after the date of the first publication." [10] Since it was first published in 1914 that criterion is satisfied. I've also added a US PD tag. Prioryman (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Lody_letter_14-09-1914.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As part of the evidence in Lody's trial in October-November 1914. Prioryman (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chief of Naval Intelligence not to send him to the UK - would they have called it that then? Not "(Great) Britain"?
Only five years previously, the UK did not have a dedicated counter-espionage organisation - see preceding
No, it's been the UK since at least 1801. The name isn't anachronistic for the period. Prioryman (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - point taken - I am not strong on history so happy to accept this. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lee might have been less soothed if he had known that the police had already recommended "that Inglis should be dealt with by court martial and shot as a spy, if found guilty, and Lee also. - Although I do like the turn of phrase and engaging prose, I do wonder whether it is a bit too embellishing of material and veers into OR about whether he'd be less soothed or not. Does the material make that inference? Might be safer along the lines of , "However he was unaware that....". The second bit can be rephrased and de-quoted.
OK, fair point. I've rephrased it. Prioryman (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overall and engaging read in a "ripping yarns" kind of way - tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose as I couldn't see any other clangers outstanding, but obviously some other folks will have to agree.....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
retire from working as a sailor sounds a bit clunky to me; is there a better way of phrasing it?
I've amended it to "to abandon a naval career". Prioryman (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know how he could afford to live in a luxury hotel?
No, but I would assume that he was living off the money that his ex-father-in-law gave him. Prioryman (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
an assumption that was to prove unfounded Do we really need that? Surely any reader would know that a four-year war was not won by a single naval battle?
Steinhauer's concerns were well-founded. Is that what the source says? It just strikes me as synthesis, and I'm not sure it adds much.
I've rephrased this as "As Steinhauer noted in his autobiography, the UK was a dangerous environment for a foreign agent." Prioryman (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lody embarked on his mission "so hastily that he did not even have time to learn a code that might have assisted him to get his messages through." Was that because he was ordered to depart quickly or was that recklessness on Lody's part?
Again the sources don't say, but I've read elsewhere that the German naval intelligence service was chronically badly organised - not exactly a model of Teutonic efficiency. It could well have been that they simply were too incompetent to give him the training he needed. Prioryman (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
in some respects it was a strange choice Are those your words or the source's?
A paraphrasing of the source, which explicitly highlights the oddity of using one of London's biggest tourist attractions (even then) as an execution ground. Prioryman (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I echo H's concern about World War I - in my experience, First World War is more common there.
I've changed this, as mentioned above. Prioryman (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
who wished to employ him to spy in southern France, to which he agreed. - You don't actually have a noun for him to agree to ("to which" would, in my experience, require a noun)
OK, reworded as "He agreed to their proposal to employ him as a peacetime spy in southern France..." Prioryman (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the war - I know it would be hard to miss this, but it's possible that a reader may not know you mean WWI
At 7 am on 6 November 1914, - do we need to be this specific in the lead?
I've reworded this - see what you think of it now. Prioryman (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
His father was a lawyer in government service, who served as mayor of Odersberg in 1881, and the following year as deputy mayor of Nordhausen, where the Lody family lived at 8 Sedanstrasse (today Rudolf-Breitscheid-Strasse). - so many clauses. Can we break this down a bit?
Unable to work any more as a sailor, - yes, you just told us that. What does this add?
Good point, I've removed that bit. Prioryman (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Omaha Daily Bee newspaper - do we need "newspaper" here?
I suppose it could be another kind of publication (a magazine?) but from the context it's probably clear enough what it is. I've taken out "newspaper". Prioryman (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The marriage was not a success; the couple lived together for only two months. - "The marriage ... success" feels like editorializing. A two month cohabitation is obviously not a success.
OK, I've reworded this: "Despite the high profile of the wedding the couple lived together for only two months." Prioryman (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the local Omaha Daily Bee newspaper put it - we were just told this was a newspaper. If you keep the occurrence of "newspaper" above, this one should be cut
Arthur Tapken, N's first director, had been Lody's commanding officer during his naval service in 1900–01. - "his" is ambiguous, possibly meaning Tapken since he was the last subject (even though you intend it to mean Lody)
Fair point. I've tweaked this to read "during the latter's naval service", which is hopefully a bit clearer. Prioryman (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
said that he was at his disposal. - I'd find a way to avoid the second "his". The (rank's) disposal?
Reworded as "and would serve at Prieger's disposal". Prioryman (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Skipping ahead...
the exact time of his execution. - does "exact" add anything here?
It probably doesn't, to be honest... Prioryman (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Hans Lody died for us 6.11.1914 in the Tower of London - the original German being...? It surely wasn't in English, after all.
OK, I've added the original German. Prioryman (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
to be run each 6 November at the time of his death. - to be rung, you mean?
Well spotted, fixed. Prioryman (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lody was further memorialised in 1937 when the newly launched destroyer Z10 was christened Hans Lody. - This two-sentence paragraph is really short. Can it be merged anywhere?
Not much point - I thought it might be better to add a bit more info, which I've done. Prioryman (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why so much weight dedicated to Heuer's play, but so little to Fuch's? And is a Dundee review really good for a German play? (also, "and on 21 February 1937 a play called Lody, by Walter Heuer, premiered on Germany's National Heroes' Day." is rather clumsy; why repeat the date of the premiere?)
Heuer's play is the subject of several reviews but I've not seen any of Fuchs' book (which I've looked at; it's a turgid piece of Nazi propaganda). The play was reviewed in several UK newspapers, with the Dundee review being the most comprehensive, so it evidently had a good deal more notability than the book. Prioryman (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. How about in German sources? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it's covered by contemporary German newspapers but unfortunately I don't have access to those. It's mentioned briefly in a few modern German books I can see on Google Books but nothing substantive. Prioryman (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The young Bertolt Brecht – 17 years old at the time - young and 17 years old are redundant. Cutting one would be best
During World War II, however, - What, exactly, does "however" contrast? The new memorial can't really be tied to the bomb, can it?
True - I've taken out the "however". Prioryman (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One final proposal was made to rebury Lody in the 1960s. - How do we know this is a "final" proposal? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I've changed "final" to "further". Prioryman (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
at 6 pm on 27 August. - again, why is the time relevant?
OK, I've changed this to "on the evening of 27 August". Prioryman (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
all mails or all mail?
I think "mails" is the correct terminology in this instance - it's what the cited source uses. Prioryman (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
taking the 2.20 pm train from King's Cross to Edinburgh. - again, why the focus on times?
OK, I've taken the time out. Prioryman (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"a Sunday" - Why is this pertinent?
Fair point, I can't see that it is. Taken this out too. Prioryman (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
court-martialled - is this the right term? I mean, both were civilians, right? And Lee was American
It's the right term. All the other German spies caught during the war were civilians (some of them non-Germans) and they were court-martialled too. 07:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
if he is a spy or takes up arms ... and he becomes a person without legal - is the ellipses yours? If so, I'd cut "and" and use a [then] instead.
The ellipses are in the original source. Prioryman (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In hindsight, it is doubtful whether the charge and eventual sentence were lawful. - according to whom?
I've attributed this to Simpson. Prioryman (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was an opportunity that was taken in the First World War when the highly successful Double-Cross System was implemented. - our article says it was the Second World War
Oops, you're right - corrected. Prioryman (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Friday 30 October and Monday 2 November. - again, why include Friday and Monday? Is it really pertinent?
I thought it was relevant for explaining why there was a gap of 2 days in the middle of the trial - they weren't weekdays. Prioryman (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My counsellor is an attorney of some standing - don't think you've named him yet, and I'd probably mention it earlier than the closing arguments
OK, I've moved the name up. Prioryman (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
. . . - why the triple periods, rather than an ellipses ...
Not sure, I've fixed this. Prioryman (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
he was an officer in the Imperial German Navy - Maybe I misread, but wasn't he a former officer at this point?
No, he was still an officer; just in the reserve. Prioryman (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why was no court martial ever brought against Lee?
Because he was completely innocent. I've made this more explicit. Prioryman (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the 3rd Battalion, the Grenadier Guards - must you give the full title here, on the second and third mention?
Tower's Chaplain - what's with the capital C? It's being used here as a general noun
No, it's not - the Chaplain of the Tower is a specific and very old position, and a member of the Chapel Royal. Unfortunately we don't appear to have an article about the position, otherwise I'd link it. Prioryman (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even his captors were themselves captivated; - what does "themselves" add to this sentence? It would be understood even without the word
OK, I've taken out the word. Prioryman (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only the certainty would not be as merciful to our own spies made them refrain. - are you missing a word here?
Two actually, I've fixed this - thanks for spotting it. Prioryman (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Admiralstab recommended at the end of 1914 that he should be awarded a posthumous Iron Cross, Second Class, and argued that the recruitment of naval agents would be assisted if espionage could be rewarded with such a prestigious medal. The Kaiser agreed, though not without some reluctance. - when was the IC awarded, or was it not given? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it was awarded in secret and didn't become public knowledge until after the war. I've not (yet) found any reference to exactly when.
@Crisco 1492: Thanks for your help with this review - hopefully I've now addressed all the points you raised. Prioryman (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Support on prose from me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(1) In lead: "His subsequent communications with that address were intercepted by censors. Lody had received no training in espionage and wrote all of his communications in plain English or German, without any means of concealment." This needs better wording: Untrained in espionage, his un-coded communications were intercepted by censors... In fact, I would start that para with the statement about his training (lack of it), because that is basically what it is about.
Good idea, I've reworded this roughly along the lines you've suggested. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(2) minor glitches in first section: Louise's tour took in several European....Louisa's tour included (took in is idiomatic). suit reinstated when Lody agreed not to contest it. Which Odersberg do you mean? The one in Hesse?
Typo on my part I'm afraid, it should have been Oderberg. I've tweaked the wording as you suggested. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(3) "On his return to Germany, Lody settled in Berlin, living in what he described as "well to do circumstances". He stayed in the Adlon, the city's most fashionable luxury hotel, while his sister Hanna lived with her doctor husband in the prosperous suburb....." "while his sister lived...." should it be and his sister? minor thing, it's just that it sounds like he lived there as long as his sister lived in the prosperous suburb, and that these two things are related.
I see what you mean, I've tweaked this. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(4)First paragraph of beginning espionage career.... went back a long way...again, idiomatic, and really, is 13-14 years a long way? Also, need explanation of HAL (put HAL in parens after Hamburg America Line). admiralty regarding such employees as Lody as ideal recruits. Really? Even though he had not a jot of espionage training? regarded such employees as Lody as ideal recruits even though they had no espionage training: many spoke fluent and idiomatic English, had connections throughout Europe and the United States and, in the case of Lody, had American connections. ???
Someone who's just been recruited won't have had espionage training, pretty much by definition. the point (which I've made clearly enough, I thought) was that employees of shipping lines had a lot of prior knowledge which was useful for the German naval intelligence service. I've reworded a few bits here which hopefully will address the other issues you've raised. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(5) "He left Berlin on 14 August, travelling via Denmark in the guise of an American tourist to the Norwegian port... traveling via Denmark to the Norwegian port, disguised as an American tourist...
looking out for =watching for
"hired him a bicycle" ? He hired a bicycle, she rented a bicycle to him.
Reworded the above three points. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yours truly Nazi. ? this needs some explanation doesn't it? His undercover name was Charles Inglis, so why is he using the nickname of Ignatius or Ignatz?
Unfortunately there's no explanation in any source that I've seen and Lody himself never explained it during his trial. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(6) where Lody was challenged by an immigration official; ... an immigration official challenged Lody...?
(7) British and German publics .... but you refer to the NYTimes? neither a German nor a British press.
Yes, but the report from the NYT's London correspondent is about how the British public reacted to the trial. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(8) hagiographic biographical account, Lody – Ein Weg um Ehre, needs translation.
Sources these are fine, although I'd prefer to see a listing at list of books that you've used, if not all, instead of simply the notes.
Red links I'm not sure of current practice on this, but there seem to be a few that should either be stubbed, or at least explained. Especially the one on Nachrichten-Abteilung, there isn't even a section in it in the Imperial German Navy article. would you be able to fill that in based on what you know?
I think I should be able to, I'll have a go at it... Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like the article very much. It is thoughtful, neutral and well cone. These are probably fairly minor, and I would be happy to support. auntieruth(talk) 17:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, I appreciate the review and the support. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
""First as Tragedy, Second as Farce": Executing German Spies at the Tower of London During World War One" - "Access date needs URL" error message showing up. Also, title should use single quotes, as you are already using quotes to identify this as a journal article
Standardize whether you use 13 or 10 digit ISBNs (13 digit is recommended by WP:ISBN)
Standardize whether or not you give locations for newspapers (compare Thüringer Allgemeine and the Fn 6's Daily Bee)
Standardize whether or not you abbreviate states (compare FN 5 and 8)
Standardize whether you use D-M-Y or M-D-Y date formats
Standardize whether or not you give locations for book publishers (compare FN 6 and 36)
FN 83: State/province?
FN 93: Page numbers?
Otherwise looks pretty good. By the way, I've got a nomination going, and would appreciate such skilled eyes on it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for doing this - I've sorted them all now, I think. @Ian Rose: - we're all done here, hopefully! Prioryman (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those were just examples. There are more. For instance, FN5 has Omaha Daily Bee (Omaha, Nebraska), whereas FN14 just has Omaha Daily Bee. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm - I just changed those to be that way. If I give the first instance of "Omaha Daily Bee (Omaha, Nebraska)" then I don't need to state in every subsequent reference that it's from Omaha, Nebraska, do I? Similar to how if you use a book for a reference, you give the full bibliographic details in the first instance and then just the title subsequently? Prioryman (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have, in the past, stated the place of origin in all instances, this being because if someone removes the first newspaper cite, we then lose the city information, and it appears more consistent. Mind you, I wouldn't argue this too extensively... after all, style is personal. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure how to proceed now. Are you OK with it as it is at the moment? Prioryman (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I intend to take this article about a 1948 mega-budget Indian film to featured status because of its historical significance in Indian cinema. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The prose is engaging and well written. It shows evidence of an accomplished copy-editor. I think FA criterion 1a has been satisfied, but the quotations are distracting, particularly the long one at the end and the one in the box. The one at the start of the Legacy section has a good impact and is of appropriate length. The nominator might want to consider using the information given in the long quotes in a less direct manner.
I find much significance in the quote box's quote, and it seems very impossible to trim it down. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course this is a new subject for me, but the article seems comprehensive; very much so in fact.
The prose is encyclopaedic and there is no evidence of disputes regarding content or bias.
It is compliant with our style guidelines apart from my concern about the quotations.
We need to double check our policy on the use of You Tube as a source (as opposed to a published disc) and one of our regulars with a keener eye than mine needs to check the formatting.
Can I use the official DVD as a source instead? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better, but of course the You Tube link is useful as long as the film is out of copyright. Graham
Done: Rm Youtube in favour of DVD sources (and the film is out of copyright in my country). Kailash29792 (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think two of the images may be a cause for concern: The screen shot and the poster from Japan are tagged.
But the Japan poster satisfies two of the criteria for Japan PD: It was published after 1946 and before 1956. Does that settle it? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We need to see a "clean" source page - no tags. Graham
Done: Rm Japan image, and kept drum dance image as non-free file. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The length is appropriate for a film article.
I would be interested in reading any comments from our Film regulars and will be pleased to add my full support later. I think the prospects for promotion are looking good. Well done. Graham Colm (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards: My first opportunity to use your 'new' name BTW, congrats...! Anyway, did you want to make any further comment before I look at closing this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A recent discussion on Commons supported keeping URAA-affected images and rejected mass-deletions of such material. However, i am not sure how "final" this decision will be in a year or two. Featured articles should have the best images possible (including their copyright situation). Even if such images are "tolerated" for now on Commons, i am not sure they qualify as featured material here on en-Wiki. The whole URAA-situation is a grandiose mess and almost impossible to handle by average editors (including myself).
Considering this background, i suggest to:
add a date to the FUR-description parameter of the infobox image.
I don't understand. You mean to write the date of the poster? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, the template doesn't even show this kind of background information. Removed that point, please ignore. GermanJoe (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
change the drumming screenshot information on en-Wiki to contain a detailed fair-use rationale.
The same image now exists on Wikimedia Commons as this, where I think it is properly tinted and licensed. I have nominated the Wikipedia image for deletion. Any admin may delete it ASAP. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, the whole URAA-situation and its handling is less than clear. Fair-use would probably still beis the better approach here. GermanJoe (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As currently written, our policies and guidelines consider images to be free only if they are free in the US, regardless of their status in their country of origin. See for example WP:NUSC. Per GermanJoe we likely will need to hold a Wikipedia-wide discussion about how the changes on Commons might affect our practices here, but for the moment this image is not free in the US and can only be used under a fair-use claim here. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
remove the second movie poster (in "Marketing") for now. GermanJoe (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, even though I thought it satisfies PD-Japan by being published before 1956. But how are all the Godzilla posters' ([12], [13] and [14]) PD-Japan status still being accepted, while this image is not? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of images on Commons still have dubious or incomplete copyright information - checking and maintenance is done only by a few interested volunteers. We can't assume, all images are OK there and need to double-check them ourselves. GermanJoe (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have not read the whole article yet. In the lead, it's mentioned that the film was filmed in Tamil and later in Hindi. Does that mean that there were two versions of the film that were shot separately? Or, was the Tamil film dubbed in hindi?
Yes, the Hindi version was shot instead of being dubbed, according to sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read the Filming section of the article. There is nothing written about separate shooting of hindi version (unless I missed any passing mention). Who directed that version? Were the actors same? I am not convinced yet. Can you tell which sources say so?--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vasan directed both the versions. Though some sources (G. Dhananjayan's The Best of Tamil Cinema, this article by Mohan V. Raman and this article in The Tribune) state the Hindi version as being shot, a famous director told Baradwaj Rangan in Conversations with Mani Ratnam that Chandralekha was "dubbed, I think. Or maybe it was partially remade", while this Hindu article claims that it was "the first South Indian film to be dubbed into Hindi." What do I do? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see there are some details in the section titled difference between two versions. Still, some info may be needed in the filming section. --Dwaipayan (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No source explains in detail about the changes to the Hindi version. As far as I know, there was a slight change in cast (N. S. Krishnan and T. A. Madhuram were omitted in the Hindi version, in favour of Yashodhara Katju and H. K. Chopra). But is it good that the section stay? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it's a very difficult problem. We are not sure whether the hindi version was totally remade, or just dubbed, or in between: portions remade and portions dubbed. I think the best thing to do would be to add an explanatory note and state that sources differ in defining the extent of remake or dub. Then mention the differences between the sources, as you have explained above. --Dwaipayan (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the language of the film should be mentioned win the very first (or, second) sentence of the lead. --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Written as how? I think the sentence should be as short as possible. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would try to suggest something later. In any case, it is not as important an issue.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. My concerns above were appropriately addressed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very well-researched article about a very monumental Tamil film, looking as complete as it can be. Is there no scope for further images? Editor 2050 (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Editor 2050, I wish that those images are out of copyright throughout the whole world; only then I can use them here (sadly, PD-India does not mean that an image free in India is necessarily free worldwide). Kailash29792 (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Editor 2050, to every Indian film buff's joy, an image of the drum dance now exists in the article because of the scene's popularity and significance in Indian cinema. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it redirects there. I want some ambitious editor to develop an article on the most expensive Indian films ever made. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Carnatic, Hindusthani [sic], Bharatnatyam, Latin American and Portuguee folk music, as well as the Struass [sic] Waltz"--> all these words should be wikilinked, cos I don't know what they are, haha.
They are already linked in the start of the music section. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Marketing" section, it's written that newspaper publicity was Rs. 574,500 and Rs. 500,000 on publicity, but the next line says the "entire publicity budget" was Rs. 25,000. I don't quite understand that. And then it says the entire publicity for most films is Rs. 100,000, which is supposedly 1/10th of 25,000???
Under "Marketing", from "An abridged English-language version of Chandralekha..." to the entire last para of the section--> I think this info should be under "Release". I don't see how it relates to marketing
I would also shift the entire last para of Marketing, since it is concerned with the film's release AB01I'M A POTATO 02:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the Japan episode? I have shifted it now. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know how well Apoorva Sagodharargal was received commercially and/or critically; if you can find info on it
Done: Written that it was also a commercial success. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question purely out of interest; how long was the sword fight? AB01I'M A POTATO 11:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No source mentions the exact amount; but after watching the scene again, can I write the amount based on my own analysis? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you have time, that would be awesome; I was just asking out of curiosity AB01I'M A POTATO 02:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Written its duration as at least two minutes. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, you didn't actually have to write in how long it was. I was only asking cos I personally wanted to know. It'd be better to remove it..sorry for the confusion AB01I'M A POTATO 08:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, one more suggestion-->I'd change the heading "Release" to "Reception" and change "Reception" to "Release and box office". AB01I'M A POTATO 08:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All comments resolved, so I can give my support (on text/content). You're a good writer, Kailash :-) AB01I'M A POTATO 11:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for the back and forth hassle caused by the complex URAA-situation. But File:Chandralekha_drum_dance.jpg still needs to be copied to a local en-Wiki version with "fair-use" rationale. (Done) While Commons may accept such images now, WP:image use policy only allows 4 distinct types of images:
own work or
freely licensed by the copyright owner or
public domain in the USA or
used with an appropriate, detailed "fair-use" rationale.
The current usage would fail all 4 points and would be a copyright violation under US law. If you need any help with the FUR or have further questions, please let me know. The infobox image is OK, so this is the only remaining image problem. GermanJoe (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So the final word: because the drum dance scene is the film's most recognised element and an image of it will stay in the article, can I upload it as a non-free file here? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images with copyright problems will very likely not pass any FA-nomination (atleast none has passed in the last few years). But this image is usable under en-Wiki "fair-use" rules, avoiding any possible copyright problems: The drum dance as a central element of the movie, its reception and its influence on later movies are all mentioned in some detail in the article. Without an image the reader can't possibly visualize its setup. So the image meets all points of WP:NFCC, after a detailed rationale is added on en-Wiki (maybe you'll need a slightly different filename to avoid a naming conflict with the current Commons image). GermanJoe (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done:this is the new file. I request any admin to delete the other one commons. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Status updated accordingly - thanks for providing a detailed rationale. GermanJoe (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"After two successive hits" sounds like a tabloid story. Would be better to say "box office hit".
Done: Written "box office hits". Kailash29792 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"It became a huge success but was unable to recover its production costs". I don't think you can describe a film to be a success if it doesn't recover its production budget. I think you mean that it earned high revenues but didn't manage to recover its budget.
Done: Maybe it scored more than other Tamil films that time, yet failed to recover the budget. Whatever, I removed the statement "huge success". Kailash29792 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"It opened up the theatres of the North to films made in the South and gave opportunities to film producers in South India to market their Hindi films in North India." Okay, firstly Western readers will be quite confused by what North and South India refers to. So I suggest wikilinking them. Also, in "..film producers in South India to market their Hindi films in North India" I think you mean South Indian films dubbed in Hindi, right?
Maybe, or even directly shot Hindi films. But the latter is of more significance. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Krimuk90, the only problem anyone may have in the lead is, "it opened up the theatres of the North" sounds a little idiomatic. You know any formal/literal alternative for it? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plot
Very well written. No comments.
Production
In the filming sub-section, is this really necessary: "Vasan became so involved in the project that he did not find a husband for his daughter Lakshmi Narayani, despite his wife's continuous nagging" Sounds very trivial to me.
Done: Removed as it is of less significance. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marketing
"No expense was spared for the publicity campaign." Again sounds like a tabloid. Can you reword this?
Done: Removed, as the para before already explains the publicity campaign as being very expensive. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Critical response
The New York Times described Rajakumari as a "buxom beauty. Were there no notable comments about the film in that review?
Unfortunately not. The year of the review is not even mentioned in the sole source I found. What do I do? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref No. 28, 43, 50, 69 , 131 does not include publisher information. I see that most of these refs that don't have publisher information are blogs, which aren't considered high-quality sources for a featured article. Can you find some better sources for these?
Ref 47 - Upperstall.com, 61- Raaga.com, 81 - IBOS, 85 - Rediff.com, 92 - Box Office India, are incorrectly formatted.
My comments on the refs:
This ref is reliable as it is an article by S. Theodore Baskaran, a reputed film historian. But I don't know what name to type in the "Publisher" field.
Apparently the publisher is "Seminar Publications, New Delhi" (please double-check). I usually check the site's entry page for such information (see footer of [[15]]). GermanJoe (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Based on that information, I have typed "Seminar Publications, New Delhi" as the publisher. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This ref is also reliable as it is by a reputed scholar Jerzy Toeplitz. But I still don't know what name to type in the "Publisher" field. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Publisher should be United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. --KRIMUK90✉ 03:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Publisher should be Senri Enthological Studies, Reitaku University. --KRIMUK90✉ 03:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Written as "Senri Ethnological Studies, Reitaku University". Kailash29792 (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some other minor corrections, but overall excellent work Kailash. Happy to support on prose when the above comments have been addressed. However, I remain skeptical about the usage of blogs as high-quality references. --KRIMUK90✉ 11:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S: I hope you fix some of the ref format inconsistencies. For e.g. Rediff ==> Rediff.com and GlamSham ==> GlamSham etc. You know the drill. --KRIMUK90✉ 03:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you remove or replace ref 127 behindwoods, if ref 126 Hindu will not suffice on its own?
Actually, The Hindu states that the event is going to happen (future tense), and Behindwoods states it happened. What do I do? I can't find any alternative for Behindwoods, which I think satisfies WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can use a primary source in this case, such as this? I don't want to see behindwoods in an FA is possible. I have been told numerous times that it's not RS. Same for glamsham. BollyJeff|talk 12:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: What an excellent alternative! I have replaced Behindwoods with it. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upperstall external link is useless, Bollywood Hungama link should be italicized
It is usually done by last name of the author, the first word that appears on the line. BollyJeff|talk 12:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good, but need more time to look it over better. BollyJeff|talk 13:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Casting section: "who later became Sivaji Ganesan" sounds odd. Maybe use "who later became known as" as is done later in the paragraph, or some other verbiage. Why do they change their names?
I dunno why, but the actor got the prefix "Sivaji" after acting in a play as Shivaji. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"because she was then moving to Modern Theatres, Salem permanently" could be "because she was then permanently moving to Modern Theatres in Salem". Also, explain why would this make a difference.
Either way, it should explain that she completely quit working for Gemini Studios. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see the problem. It was not clear to me as originally worded, and maybe still to other readers, which one was moving. BollyJeff|talk 18:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Filming section: $105,000.11 ? A little rounding wouldn't hurt. Also remove space between rupee sign and amount here and everywhere
Themes and influences: first paragraph - put films in time order in the sentence (Ben-Hur last), and put separate opinions in time order as well if you can. This same comment applies to Critical response-India sectoin.
Box office: I would definitely not use the IBOS figure. These tend to be highly inflated. The two films at the top of that list are both already FAs (by yours truly), and do not use the figures from IBOS.
Done: Rm IBOS as box office source, but retained it as a purported source for the Hindi version's release date. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Chandralekha drum dance scene.jpg is PD-India and not copyrighted as per Indian laws. Screenshots of movie are in PD after 60 years from date of release. Just tag it PD-India too and mention in comments in fair use rationale.
I tried convincing several other reviewers about the same, but they said it is still copyrighted in the US (after the British Raj, are we now under the rule of the Americans, who can determine the status of our property?) Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is copyrighted per URAA. I am just saying. Also tag it as PD-India and write rationale in fair use rationale. This is good to have thing. :) --RedtigerxyzTalk 18:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: As per your advice, I have added the PD-India tag to the file, which is still marked as a non-free fiel with FUR. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lead para should have the language/industry (Tamil cinema) of the film. See Pather Panchali.
As how? "a 1948 Indian Tamil historical fiction film"? I would also like to call it an "epic film" due to its spectacle. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"a 1948 Indian Tamil historical fiction film" works for me. Epic film: not sure. --RedtigerxyzTalk 18:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* Hindi version: Since there was difference in versions, was the entire film reshot in Hindi OR was it dubbed in Hindi? Since there is a difference in cast, may be it was reshot. This part is unclear from the article.
Except for one source which provides no deep analysis, the others clearly mention the Hindi version as being shot (the slight change in cast also explains the Hindi version as being shot), although Mani Ratnam is unsure whether the film was shot or dubbed in his claim. So I will write the Hindi version as being shot only. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read a para about it in Release. Move to the "Differences between versions". I will also suggest renaming it as "Hindi version".--RedtigerxyzTalk 12:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will suggest that Hindi version from "Release" be moved be moved to "Hindi version", as it is seems amiss in Release section. --RedtigerxyzTalk 15:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just what and all do I move? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where did Chandralekha premiere?
Are you referring to the claim that comes under "Marketing"? I am too tired to do anymore research, so I think I'll just remove the claim. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about "Chandralekha was released on 9 April 1948 at ______ ". Premiere show was at which theatre.. Sadly, research needed. --RedtigerxyzTalk 18:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Written that it released throughout South India at the same time. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about this? Generally, even Indian films as early as 1920s had premiere shows. If this film did not have one, I will take your word for it. --RedtigerxyzTalk 15:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the only source, I have written it as having released throughout the South at the same time. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"it was the first Indian film to be dubbed and released in English" needs a better reference. The source is a book on stamps, which is not the best source for an extraordinary claim like this one. The Hindu says "He also pioneered making South Indian films in English"
Is "Post Haste Quintessential India" the book you are referring to? I think I'll just remove the claim, and reduce the length of the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think you should mention "He also pioneered making South Indian films in English" (copied from the Hindu). RedtigerxyzTalk 18:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"became the most expensive Indian film at that time" extraordinary claim needs ref from film-related reference. Not a local Chennai magazine.
The reputed film historian Randor Guy is the author of this source, which reads at the end "Excerpted from Starlight, Starbright with the permission of the author". Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plot: "of a fictitious region" seems unnecessary, remove or replace with name of kingdom in film. In the film, the king had a real kingdom. Right?
I saw the film last year, and don't remember whether the kingdom's name was specified. So I have just referenced the kingdom without a name, although someone may ask, "what was the kingdom's name?" Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"outwits a vicious bandit, delivers the final insult ..." quotes need inline references
Done: Included ref at the end of the paragraph it is in. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Subbu's wife M. S. Sundari Bai : who is Subbu? Is it the storywriter K. Subbu. May be write "storywriter Subbu's wife"
Done: Written Kothamangalam Subbu. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Music: film historian M. Bhaktavatsala, film critic V. A. K. Ranga Rao, B. D. Garga say the same thing. Remove repetition: carnatic, Hindustani ... Merge "Critical reception". No separate heading needed. It has no contemporary views.
Done: Sections merged, and identical views deleted. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Critical response" has become a WP:QUOTEFARM. Can something be done about it. Also, add dates for all reviews.
The best anyone can do is trim down William K. Everson's quote. I earlier put the whole quote as I couldn't figure out which of his sayings should go out. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Dates already there, and quotes are at suitable level. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove: The opening titles of both versions include a line reading "100 Gemini Boys & 500 Gemini Girls". Not a difference. Already stated.
@Redtigerxyz: Was there anything you wanted to add before I look at closing this review? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, there are minor things to do. I am ok with passing it in its current form too, if you deem appropriate. RedtigerxyzTalk 15:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's all the comments he has. Once they have all been solved, I think this FAC can be closed; it does look like the article will pass. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about the fourth most prevalent cancer in women, very highly viewed and quite important. The article has been improved substantially in the past weeks by a peer review, GA review, and an expert review from Cancer Research UK. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Kei, I guess I'll review this... but we all know I don't know anything about medicine (the ear bone's connected to the ... what now?)
Globally, as of 2012, endometrial cancers occurred in 320,000 women and caused 76,000 deaths. - "As of" would be present tense, as it is something that holds true or we expect to hold true. I'd use "in 2012" as the numbers can change dramatically from year to year.
Done
What's with all the hidden refs? When at the end of a paragraph, one would expect a footnote (i.e. Abnormal menstrual periods or extremely long, heavy, or frequent episodes of bleeding in women before menopause may also be a sign of endometrial cancer.)
For those at the end of a paragraph (such as the one I quoted) I'd make the ref apparent. People generally assume that a ref doesn't cover paragraphs before the paragraph in which the ref is located. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Symptoms, other than bleeding, do not occur commonly. - "Commonly do not occur" or "there are few in common" or... I feel this could probably be reworked
Done
You really need to check for duplicate links. I've gotten two or three in the same paragraph. I'm not removing any more as there are too many.
Done
by 3-4 times - by 300 to 400%, or another reworking. "By 3 to 4 times" just feels off
Done
Ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer - why the extra "cancers"? Couple instances of this
Done
There is a loose association because breast and ovarian cancers are often treated with tamoxifen. - the treatment causes the illness? That's what it reads like to me. What you intend (I think) is that the treatment of another kind of cancer (tamoxifen) can cause endometrial cancer, but that's not what the wording conveys to me. The connection only becomes clear in the following paragraph
Done
Women with this disorder have a 5-10% lifetime risk of developing endometrial cancer. - as opposed to ...?
Done As opposed to a normal 2-3% risk, clarified.
Specifically, ovarian granulosa cell tumors and thecomas are ovarian tumors associated with endometrial cancer. - repetition of "ovarian"
Done
is not currently significant - when, exactly, is "currently"?
Done
CDKN2A are both dablinks
Done
10-20% of endometrial cancers, - I'd refactor to avoid starting sentences with numerals
Done
20% of endometrioid - again
Done
8-30% of atypical - again
Done
Why does the Mani source not have vol, issue, and page numbers?
It was an e-publication ahead of print - I don't think it's been printed yet.
Hmm... wouldn't most e-publications still have such information? I know my own such publications have had the volume and issue easily accessible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Article in press"... if it weren't for the publication saying it's alright to cite, I'd be wary... who's to say that there will be no major changes in the process? Anywho, it looks fine to me in this case. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Generally article in press means all changes have already been made and the only further changes will be to page numbers etc as it hasn't been published in the print edition yet and assigned those minor details. Since that comment, it has now been assigned those details, Second Quantization (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The single-sentence or single paragraphs sections a bit further south look really rough. Any way to either expand and/or merge?
If you're referring to the section on other carcinomas, I've looked for information and since there are only about 100 known cases each of both squamous cell carcinoma of the endometrium and transitional cell carcinoma, it's hard to find anything meeting MEDRS. I've found a couple promising papers but they're quite dense. More to come on this later - I've been overloaded with molecular path and evo/devo papers this week and need a day to unscramble my poor brain.
Okay. I went diving in PubMed and mined the only two relevant MEDRS-ish sources for PSCCE. I did use an article that had both case reports and a review of the literature because my options were very limited. There aren't any reviews of the past 5 years covering transitional cell carcinoma of the endometrium (it's that rare) so I'm going to go slightly outside of that in order to get something on TCCE. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks very good. There's also the few short paragraphs in #Research. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: Thank you so much for all your comments! I think I've satisfied most of your concerns from this section. I'll keep plugging away this weekend. Keilana|Parlez ici 15:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
being highly suspicious for endometrial cancer. - Was the patient suspicious, or... what's meant here?
Done - Clarified that the finding is what's suspicious.
both an endometrial biopsy and a transvaginal ultrasound - so used in conjunction?
Yup. Not sure how to make this clearer beyond saying "used in conjunction".
In the United States they are more common in white women, often with a history of endometrial hyperplasia. - the subject was "they" as in the carcinomas. I don't think carcinomas can have a history of endometrial hyperplasia
I mean, they evolve from hyperplasia... ;) Done
have a good outcome - prognosis? I can't imagine a cancer left unchecked having a "good" outcome. Prognosis, at least, implies treatment.
Done
The CTNNB1 (beta-catenin) mutation is most commonly mutated in the squamous subtype of endometrioid adenocarcinoma. - mutation - mutated; can we avoid the repetition
Yeah, we can. Done
30% of endometrial serous carcinomas - more numerals
Not sure what the issue is here?
Sentences starting with numerals (or, at least, were when I reviewed)
Ah. Done.
pelvic and para-aortal nodes - I don't think these are linked yet
Done
in the lung - or in the lungs? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done
is performed for tumors of histologic grade II or above. Lymphadenectomy is routinely performed for all stages of endometrial cancer in the United States, but in the United Kingdom, the lymph nodes are typically only removed with disease of stage II or greater. - redundant
I'm not sure how this is redundant, since histologic grade and disease stage are different. Am I missing something?
What's that? Humans only use 10% of their brain? Stet. I must have misread this sentence, or not comprehended the difference. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
90% of women are treated with some form of surgery - another sentence beginning with numerals. Also, this would work much better closing the paragraph
Done
In stage IV disease, where there are distant metastases, surgery can be used as part of palliative therapy. - could this be merged somewhere?
Done
happen about 5-10% of the time - "happen in about 5-10% of cases" might be more professional.
Done
dilation and curettage (D&C) - you've already linked this and given the abbreviation. You should just use D&C, or get rid of the abbreviation altogether and use the full name
Done
This is called adjuvant therapy. - redundant to the two sentences before
Done
Mutations in mismatch repair genes can lead to resistance against platins, meaning that chemotherapy with platins is ineffective in people with these mutations. - if this is related to Lymph disease or another condition which exacerbates the disease, we might want to be more explicit
Done
shows tumor invading the cervix, - This feels rough to me, though if it's the proper terminology I'll push that concern aside
Invasion is the technical term, yeah. Not sure how to write that without compromising the scientific meaning.
25% of metastatic endometrioid - again
Done
Also, endometrial stromal sarcomas can be treated with hormonal agents, including tamoxifen, 17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate, letrozole, megestrol acetate, and medroxyprogesterone - and how well do these work?
Jury's out. I could go into more extensive detail about various studies and such if you think that wouldn't be overkill.
Would be nice to have at least that much, maybe with one or two discussions of studies. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
K, I've expanded the bits on hormonal treatment of ESS, added some to Research about hormonal agents, and expanded the ESS section itself. Better? (It's super rare so hard to find MEDRS on it.) Keilana|Parlez ici 00:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have a hidden note about the table being US figures... why isn't this noted in the article?
It should be. Done
Older age indicates a worse prognosis. - "older age" is a bit rough, I think. "There is a negative relationship between patients' ages and survival rates." would be more professional, or something similar.
@Crisco 1492: I'm not sure if that's clear enough for the lay reader, perhaps something like "Survival rates are lower for older women"? Keilana|Parlez ici 01:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even better wording, I agree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Higher-staged cancers are more likely to recur — those that have invaded the myometrium or cervix, or that have metastasized into the lymphatic system, are particularly likely to recur. - Could we avoid "likely to recur" being in the article twice? Perhaps " Higher-staged cancers are more likely to recur, as are those that have invaded the myometrium or cervix, or that have metastasized into the lymphatic system."
Done
If a cancer treated with radiation occurs, - occurs -> recurs?
Uh, yeah. Done.
Worldwide, approximately 320,000 women are diagnosed with endometrial cancer each year and 76,000 die, making it the sixth most common cancer in women. - date of statistics?
2014. Done
Too much repetition of "developed countries" in #Epidemiology
Not sure how to reduce that without making stats unclear. Any ideas?
Is "first-world" still politic, or are we supposed to avoid it? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I personally prefer to avoid it. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then I don't have any ideas. "The West" is just as problematic, if not more so. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, and North America have the highest rates of endometrial cancer, comprising 48% of diagnoses in 2012, whereas Africa and West Asia have the lowest rates. Asia saw 41% of the world's endometrial cancer diagnoses in 2012. - That's three continents making up 48%, compared to one continent making up 41%. How do three individually have higher rates than Asia alone? Concerning...
Not quite sure what the worry is here, but it might be helped by "together comprising 48% of diagnoses ....". Obviously Asia has by far the largest pop. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's the mix of rates (relative to population) with absolute numbers (the percent of diagnoses) that is confusing me. Is there perhaps a more elegant way to phrase this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I agree, it's the mix of rates and absolute numbers and the confounding factor of West Asia vs all of Asia. I think it's clarified better now...? Keilana|Parlez ici 01:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
most frequently during perimenopause and menopause, between the ages of 50 and 65; overall, 75% of endometrial cancer occurs after menopause. - Feels contradictory: if 75% of cancer cases occur after menopause, then during menopause it wouldn't be "most frequent"
Perimenopause and menopause together are most frequent - perimenopause includes after menopause. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but perimenopause (according to the menopause article) also includes "before menopause"... which, to me, at least, means pretty much any woman from age 35 to 65 (or however menopausal age is defined) is most frequently affected. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, unfortunately the source isn't more specific. Should I just remove the bit about perimenopause/menopause? Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to Doc James or another person better versed in medicine than I. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5% of cases occur in women younger than 40 and 10-15% occur in women under 50 years of age. - another numeral
Done
is still underway. - as of?
Probably, for most/all of these: "now, 5 years ago and in 10 years time". It's a very slow process, with research before and after anything affects clinical practice. It's probably best to start the section with some blanket statement including a vague date "in the middle 2010s" maybe. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"As of the mid-2010s" would work nicely too. Much better than a whole bunch of "as ofs", and it would satisfy WP:ASOF. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Research is ongoing on the use of metformin, a diabetes medication, - again, as of?
Done
in the first place, - feels non-formal. Perhaps "Long-term use of metformin has not been shown to have a preventative effect against developing cancer (?or, "the development of cancer"?), but may improve overall survival."
Done
Temsirolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, is under investigation as a potential treatment. - again
per above, included in the "mid-2010s" umbrella. Done
<-- hormonal stuff --> - I know this is hidden text, but... "stuff"?
uh. "hormonal research". Done.
Hormone therapy that is effective in breast cancer - in treating, perhaps?
I'm getting error messages from some of your cites: "Endometrial Cancer Treatment (PDQ®)" and "General Information About Endometrial Cancer"" have date errors, and Lee JM and Banerjee S, use deprecated parameters. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting error messages from either of those sources. Maybe someone came by and fixed it? Keilana|Parlez ici 01:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooh, I see what you mean. Fixed now. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once the prose changes settle down, I'd recommend checking the order of your footnotes. I've seen some like [23][15] etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find either of them but the website is really difficult to navigate. I've removed them for now, until I can dig up the originals.Keilana|Parlez ici 02:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:EndometrialStromalSarcoma.JPG - I'm not seeing evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. Web resolution and quality / type of other nominations suggest (to me) that s/he may not be. Since the side-by-side presentation looks a little rough (and the image sizes are uneven) losing it is not too much of a blow.
See Wikipedia:WikiProject_CRUK. There is an OTRS ticket wending its way here, which will be added to all these via the template, I hope in a few days. As WiR, I can confirm the release has been approved by CRUK, who supplied Fae with the svg files. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thanks, that's more than enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not too crazy about the gallery, to be honest. The images are too small to really see anything, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that what MediaViewer is for? ;) In all seriousness, I'm not sure there's a better option. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cutting down to just the diagrams would be nice. Or we could do something fancy like this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna steal your fancy gallery thingy and stick the gross path somewhere else. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and images. Assuming this is comprehensive and accurate. I mean, damn it, I'm a literary critic, not a doctor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the review and your support! The article is much better for it. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 14:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done, building on what Crisco's already said
Why so many citations in the lead?
Uh, Doc James? Something something MEDMOS? Everything in the lead is discussed and cited elsewhere. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, didn't realize that was just a proposal. I have no strong feelings either way. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal passed and it has now been added.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Abnormal menstrual periods or extremely long, heavy, or frequent episodes of bleeding in women before menopause may also be a sign of endometrial cancer." - source?
Sourced.
Fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of column width
Think it's better now.
National Cancer Institute is a publisher, not a publication - generally you're being inconsistent in how you treat it, compare for example FNs 1, 2, 6 and 9
Done
MM/DD/YYYY is not an allowed date format
Seppi is awesome and took care of this.
Be consistent in how you format author lists - sometimes you've got "lastname, initial;", other times "lastname initial,"
Done
Where you have page ranges for chapters, it would be helpful to include them
A lot of these are e-books and don't have page ranges. Is that okay?
Yes, just good to have when you have them. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes you're abbreviating journal titles, other times not - be consistent
Done
FN19 has doubled quote marks
Seppi got this one too.
FN43: suggest splitting out publisher from title. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the citation number has changed, could you point me to this again?
I appear to have fixed the MM/DD/YYYY and FN19 issues you noted while performing the MOS-related edits in my review. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thanks much for the review! I think I've taken care of or responded to everything. Thanks also Seppi for your fixes. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 02:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
43 is now 47; a couple of other replies above. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll review the prose later this week, though I did notice that the capitalization of the word "type" isn't consistent in the article. In some cases, "Type I" and "Type II" is used and elsewhere it's written as "type I" and "type II".
Done
Also, I noticed none of the images had WP:ALT text. Ideally, a featured article should have this for every image. I already added alt text to the images that I moved into templates, but the remaining images are missing it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Support – With my tweaks to the layout/source-code addressing the MOS issues, and based upon a read-through of the article, I think this is now ready for FA-status. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 15:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Currently this article lacks any section about the cultural impact of this condition. For such a common disease it seems that it hardly exists in popular discussion. I do not expect much, but I would like either a history or society and culture section here, even if that is just a single sentence where someone says "No sources discuss the history of recognizing this condition.(citation needed)"
Here are the oldest sources I could find on PubMed. I cannot read them. Maybe one of them says something about the early history of treatment or recognition of the disease.
DIDDLE, AW (1949 Jan). "Endometrial carcinoma". Western journal of surgery, obstetrics, and gynecology. 57 (1): 20–2. PMID18107274. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
ARNESON, AN (1950 Aug). "The use of radium in the treatment of endometrial cancer". The Journal of the Kansas Medical Society. 51 (8 Suppl.): 37A–38A. PMID14774594. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
SPEERT, H (1949 Mar). "Carcinoma of the endometrium in young women". Surgery, gynecology & obstetrics. 88 (3): 332–6. PMID18111780. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
I imagine there was very little "popular discussion" until recent decades (or even now), because of the "delicate" location, and it would probably be lumped with other female repro system cancers. Like the pancreas, the endometrium is not one of the bits of internal anatomy that most people know about, or can name (a smaller group than one might think, it seems). I agree some medical history would be good. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry:/@Wiki CRUK John: I'm taking an immunology exam this week (eek!) so it may take me a couple days but I'll read through these articles and see if I can come up with anything beyond "nobody talks about this". Watch this space! :) Keilana|Parlez ici 04:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry:/@Wiki CRUK John: Okay. Immunology exam survived. It turns out that I don't have access to these articles either. I've looked at the Guardian article and incorporated a brief history and culture section. I think John is right - there's not much discussion because it's in the uterus and it's in a relatively obscure bit of anatomy. I can't find anything more to add to a history and culture section - I hope it's adequate. Keilana|Parlez ici 15:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keilana We checked for sources and Wikipedia is a summary of what we have found. I am happy with the outcome and think that the culture section presents what identified reliable sources have to say. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll copyedit anything straightforward and drop some notes as I go....
Other possible symptoms include: pain with urination, pain with sexual intercourse or pelvic pain - it's alotta pain in one sentence...why not "Other possible symptoms include: pain with urination or sexual intercourse, or pelvic pain"
Done
It most commonly occurs in the decades after menopause - looks weird without a number before "decades"....
I'm not sure what number I could put there, suggestions? Keilana|Parlez ici 16:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, if it can't b quantified, do we lose any meaning by "It most commonly occurs in the decades after menopause"?
Endometrial cancer is associated with obesity, excessive estrogen exposure, high blood pressure and diabetes.[1] Approximately 40% of cases are related to obesity.[4] - I'd flip these, which allows some elimination of repetition - "Approximately 40% of cases are related to obesity.[4] Endometrial cancer is also associated with excessive estrogen exposure, high blood pressure and diabetes.[1] "
Done
Immigration studies show that there is some environmental component to endometrial cancer. - looks interesting - any other comments from the article that can be gleaned on the basis for this would be good to add at this point.
Unfortunately, it's a gyne textbook and doesn't say much beyond that. Will add more if I come across anything. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endometrial cancer nearly always develops before colon cancer, on average, 11 years before - would be better further up its para.
Done
Endometrial cancer forms when normal cell growth in the endometrium encounters errors. - "encounters" strikes me as an odd word here..."errors arise in cell growth..."? Actually, try reading the para without the sentence as I think we can lose it and not lose meaning
Hrm, I was trying to avoid saying "goes wrong". How's "Endometrial cancer forms when there are errors in normal endometrial cell growth"? Keilana|Parlez ici 16:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better, though I still think we could actually lose the sentence altogether. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lymphadenectomy is routinely performed for all stages of endometrial cancer in the United States, but in the United Kingdom, the lymph nodes are typically only removed with disease of stage II or greater - this contrasts oddly with the sentence immediately before it. In fact, I'd put The topic of lymphadenectomy and what survival benefit it offers in stage I disease is still being debated. as the first sentence in the bit discussing who does what and probably lose the above sentence.
This came up earlier - it's histologic grade vs stage. I don't want to avoid the stage difference between US and UK. To clarify - in both countries, any cancer above stage II OR grade II gets lymphadenectomy. The only difference is that in the US, stage I (not grade I) cancers also can have lymphadenectomy. I'm not sure how to make the wording clearer. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
sigh - this happens sometimes. Will take another look. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Laparotomy, an open-abdomen procedure, is the traditional surgical protocol; - strange way to use "protocol" - I'd say "Laparotomy (open surgery) is the traditional surgical procedure;" or somesuch.
Done
There are several experimental therapies for endometrial cancer under research as of the 2010s, including immunologic, hormonal, and chemotherapeutic. - I think you can lose the "as of the 2010s" -as implied and hence redundant
Done
can stop or reverse the progress of endometrial cancer in young women. - you'd want to qualify with an age limit or range other than "young".....
Not sure what "young" means beyond "pre-menopausal". The source isn't clear, unfortunately. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at the overall coverage and balance...looks good though I haven't investigated sources as yet. My cousin is a OBGYN so will ask her to have a look. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DoneSUPPORT after the below points were addressed. JFW | T@lk 22:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, well done on the hard work so far. Truly admirable and likely to have a real impact; the writing style is clear and accessible. I will keep my comments brief.
Done General: a number of primary sources is referenced, and I was hoping they could be replaced with secondary sources (e.g. Mariño-Enríquez et al 2008, Nicolaije et al 2013)
I think these are okay because I only reference the portions that are the "review of the literature". If that's not okay, I can work on replacing them. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Acceptable if there are no alternatives. JFW | T@lk 20:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done The introduction has numerous references; I think they can be a bit offputting for the casual reader and I would recommend removing them.
You're the second reviewer to say that - I've hidden most of them (for the sake of translation efforts, I don't want to remove them entirely.) Keilana|Parlez ici 16:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We had a discussion about putting refs in the lead here [17]. For multiple reasons they are a good idea to keep to some extend. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a deal breaker. JFW | T@lk 20:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Signs and symptoms: in the second paragraph, the exact meaning of "these symptoms" is not quite clear. Does it refer to pyometra or to abdominal pain and cramping, and does it specifically indicate endometrial cancer or other cancers as well?
It's since been changed, possibly by me? Better now? Keilana|Parlez ici 04:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The words "these symptoms" remain ambiguous. JFW | T@lk 20:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It now reads "Of women with these less common symptoms (vaginal discharge, pelvic pain, and pus), 10–15% have cancer.", is it more clear now? Keilana|Parlez ici 18:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This seems reasonable, although semantically one could still argue that the sentence is ambiguous as to whether this is an AND or an OR relationship. JFW | T@lk 22:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Risk factors: many readers may not understand what an "immigration study" is, and a short explanation of its relevance would be beneficial.
Hopefully gave a fairly decent explanation.
Done Risk factors#Genetics: I am unsure what is meant by "loose association" - is there an apparent link between BRCA1/2 and endometrial cancer that can be attributed to the use of tamoxifen? Clarification may be needed.
Yeah, that's basically what's going on, there's a loose statistical association but the general consensus is that it's due to tamoxifen. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Risk factors#Protective factors: is there any particular explanation why multiparity reduces the risk? Currently the context alludes to the possibility that it might be progestin-related.
I haven't seen any authors make that direct connection, but it's implied in several texts. Is it okay as it stands? Keilana|Parlez ici 04:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no sources suggesting some causality then I am happy with the current version. JFW | T@lk 20:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anyone explicitly suggesting causality, no. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Pathophysiology: the text refers to "Type 1" and "Type 2" cancers, but they are only defined further down in the article (in Diagnosis#classification)
Er, should I move pathophysiology? Because I don't want to get into the nitty gritty of classification in the middle of discussing pathophys. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can get away with saying "(explained below)". JFW | T@lk 20:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Management#Surgery: the exact purpose of mastectomy in type 2 tumors is unclear ("prophylaxis" is vague)
So the source just says "For type II lesions, mastectomy is usually added." My assumption is that it's got something to do with estrogen receptors but I'm digging for a more comprehensive explanation. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the average reader might be puzzled so I do think that this needs clarification. JFW | T@lk 20:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I can't find any other sources anywhere that say anything about prophylactic mastectomy in endometrial cancer, so I've gone ahead and removed that sentence. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. JFW | T@lk 22:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Management#Add-on therapy#Radiotherapy: some short explanations of concepts like EBRT and brachytherapy would be valuable
Done Management#Targeted therapy: if this is not in widespread use it might be better to move this to "Research"
Eh, it's becoming part of standard of care? I also can't see a good place for it to live in #Research. Keilana|Parlez ici 20:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The olaparib article says that it's still undergoing clinical trials. I wouldn't create the suggestion that it is used routinely, hence my recommendation for the research section. JFW | T@lk 20:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I've moved all of that to a subsection of research. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done References: generally good sourcing. Some of the journals are linked to a redlink - is there a reason for this or might it be possible to remove them?
I think someone went through and linked them, I don't have strong feelings one way or another. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Certainly agree with JFW that the red link is annoying, and I'd also question whether supplying journal links in general is actually helpful. 109.153.156.71 (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaning strongly towards support, so please let me know when the above has been addressed! Good luck. JFW | T@lk 22:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jfdwolff: I think I've addressed everything, would you be willing to take another look please? Thanks, Keilana|Parlez ici 21:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keilana Great work. Just a couple of loose ends but coming very close to full support. JFW | T@lk 20:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Keilana: Excellent work. SUPPORT for FA from me! JFW | T@lk 22:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT Agree excellent article. One comment is that I would either add redirects where appropriate or a small amount of content at the red links. This is simply a personal thing and is in no way required. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I too would like to congratulate Keilana on her exemplary work here.
In the lead:
Endometrial cancer is when cancer arises from the endometrium... Personally, I'm uncomfortable with this structure on stylistic grounds. Suggest either Endometrial cancer is cancer that arises from the endometrium... or Endometrial cancer occurs when cancer arises from the endometrium...
It is due to the abnormal growth of cells that... The expression "due to" seems to imply that it is caused by abnormal growth (which at a cellular level is admittedly true). Suggest It stems from the abnormal growth of cells that...
@109.153.156.71: (does ping work with IPs??) Thank you very much for your comments! I look forward to hearing more. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great article, seems to be very complete and almost ready to be a featured article. I have some concerns/comments:
The word 'should' is used far too often (women with endometrial cancer should...)
A lot of numbers and percentages are given, but it is not always exactly clear what they mean (e.g. the risk of endometrial cancer is 1.6%, is this annual risk? lifetime risk? in women only (presumably)? Also, assuming this is lifetime risk, it contradicts the 2-3% number given a few sentences below)
Only in people with uteruses, yeah. Nothing in Pubmed on trans men and their risk of endometrial cancer, though I did find this and this, which say that trans men taking testosterone who haven't had a hysterectomy may be at higher risk. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I was not sugesting including trans men in this, just adding 'in women' to that sentence would do. However the point on the numbers/percentages which are not always completely clear still stands. --WS (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keliana, do you know whether that number accounts for the hysterectomy rate? I believe that something like a third to half of American women have a hysterectomy. When you're talking about older women, the gap between "1.6% of people who were born with a uterus" and "1.6% of people who still have a uterus" is about half a million American women. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Wouterstomp: and @WhatamIdoing: Okay, so I've been looking into this for the past few days and here's the deal. The first pair of numbers (0.6% vs 1.6%) is in women up to the age of 75 and doesn't mention the hysterectomy rate. I read the original paper and it didn't say anything about hysterectomies - I'd therefore assume "1.6% of people who were born with a uterus". The second number (2-3% lifetime risk) includes women after the age of 75 and also doesn't mention hysterectomies. I'm not sure these numbers are incompatible because they used different age ranges, and given that the average age of diagnosis is pretty high, the incidence after 75 could be skewing that number a bit. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Routine screening of asymptomatic women is not indicated, since the disease is highly curable in its early stages." - I would consider this a strong argument for rather than against screening; or is it meant to say early symptomatic stages?; also screening could have its own subsection.
Early symptomatic stages, it's usually symptomatic very very early on. Routine screening would pick it up about when someone would be noticing symptoms.
I think what they're suggesting is, like, doing a Pipelle biopsy on women after menopause. Which would be ineffective because it would pick up cancer right around the stage when they'd be noticing the sx anyways. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest starting the article with a classification section, and only keeping a few sentences about classification in the diagnosis section (especially considering the pathophysiology section discusses type I and II cancers without them having been defined before).
Just to clarify, do you want me to move the existing classification section to the beginning of the article, or add something about classification to the lead or something else? Keilana|Parlez ici 16:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
in the lead: "In 2012, endometrial cancers occurred in 320,000 women and caused 76,000 deaths." - Although these might be impressive numbers, risks/percentages would be more useful i.m.o.
I'm gonna hold off on that till we sort out what's up with the risk percentage stats. I'd also like to keep the incidence numbers in the lead if that's okay. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Alcohol consumption is associated with endometrial cancer, though the association has not been fully investigated and is not currently considered significant." - Not really sure how to interpret that, can this be left out?
Basically, some studies show an association with alcohol, but the studies aren't strong enough to say there's definitely a connection yet. I'm open to taking it out. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The diagnosis section is a bit vague; it could use a short introduction indicating what the definite diagnosis is based on, and what role physical examination, imaging and histology have.
Okay, I've written some intro text. How's it look? Keilana|Parlez ici 16:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The history section could be expanded; e.g. here you could mention when things like chemotherapy or hormonal therapy were widely introduced into clinical practive , instead of the somewhat vague definitions now used in the specific sections (e.g. "Adjuvant chemotherapy is a recent innovation")
Unfortunately, I'd have to end up delving into OR to write this properly, so that may be a future publication for me that we can then cite here. ;) Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The research section is quite long; is this all up-to-date information or merely the text that has accumulated over the years? I would generally prefer keeping it short and only indicating broad research directions being pursued instead of specifics.
This is all recent, compiled in the past month or two. Everything should be up to date and I'm committed to keeping it that way. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's great. --WS (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The see also section can be removed I think.
Not sure what the rationale for the links there was, I've changed it to actually useful see also links. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of info is sourced to the Cochrane reviews. Although these are (very) high quality sources, they address a specific question, and I think they should be primarily used to support this topic, while more general information is more appropriately sourced to a good more general review article.
The parts I'm citing from the reviews are usually the review of literature bit, not necessarily the results bit. I can duplicate with a traditional review article if you'd like, though. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is perhaps more a matter of personal preference, the Cochrane reviews are certainly ok as well. --WS (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some further smaller changes myself. Support feature article candidacy once most of these points are resolved. --WS (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Wouterstomp: Thanks so much for your review! I really appreciate it. I've answered some above and will keep plugging away in the next few days. Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 04:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Wouterstomp: Okay, I think I've cleared most of these up. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks, Keilana|Parlez ici 16:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support noting some potential COI. I've been hanging back on this, because I got a review of the article by Cancer Research UK staff, and it makes good use of the images CRUK have released as part of my project (last 5 images in the current version). I've also been waiting to see what more expert reviewers had to say. I've made the odd change myself too. I'm happy it meets FA standard. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a re-review at CRUK, as it's moved on a fair bit since the first, and will make most of the changes straight to the article, if that's ok. I'll come back with a diff here. It's pretty much all fine-tuning. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One point echoing WS above is his "I would suggest starting the article with a classification section, and only keeping a few sentences about classification in the diagnosis section (especially considering the pathophysiology section discusses type I and II cancers without them having been defined before)." See also one of JFW's points, resolved by a "see below". WP:MEDMOS's list of recommended sections says:
The following list of suggested headings contains wikilinks; the actual headings should not.
Classification: If relevant. May also be placed as a subheading of diagnosis
Signs and symptoms or Characteristics ....
- but I think all the cancer articles I've looked at put "Classification" as a subheading of diagnosis, rather than at the start. I think this is often sub-optimal. As it now is, with sub-sections on several types, some pretty rate, I think it's too long to put it all at the top. But a summary just below the lead would be good. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Wiki CRUK John: Thanks for getting a re-review! I'm not sure what to call the shorter section other than "classification". perhaps "types"? I could do just one or two sentences on each subtype. What do you think? Keilana|Parlez ici 13:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You could call the top one Classification & in diagnosis "types". I wouldn't even do one or two sentences on each subtype, just take up the "carcinoma" summary, & add a sentence on sarcomas. Also is the treatment generally the same-ish for all? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's sorted then. That's a nifty solution I'll employ from here on out! Keilana|Parlez ici 00:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Alcohol consumption is associated with endometrial cancer, though the association has not been fully investigated and is not currently considered significant.ref name=WCR2014/" I can't see this in the expected place in the WCR - p. 475. Nor is EC in the list in the Alcohol risks chapter on p. 97 Table 2.3.1. CRUK don't think there's an association ("An analysis of studies has shown no link between drinking alcohol and the risk of womb cancer" on the site), & afai can see the papers by Saso, Columbo, Burke & their respective co-authors don't mention it. Hypertension might be added to the list of risk factors, per all 3 of those sources.
I may have mixed up or lost a citation somewhere in there? Not sure what happened. Hypertension is already in there, last sentence of #Other health problems. ("High blood pressure is also a risk factor,[16] but this may be because of its association with obesity.[20]", cited to Colombo and Burke). Keilana|Parlez ici 00:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Refs :
4.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o International Agency for Research on Cancer (2014). World Cancer Report 2014. World Health Organization. Chapter 6.7. ISBN978-92-832-0429-9.
5.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f International Agency for Research on Cancer (2014). World Cancer Report 2014. World Health Organization. Chapter 5.12. ISBN978-92-832-0429-9.
-Chapter 6.7 is economic burden, 5.12 is gyny cancers.
Staging (this is me) - shouldn't you cover how this is done? NB in particular the Burke source on the preference for surgical staging, reflected also in Saso et al (Bottom p 4). You have, refed Hoffman "Staging of the cancer is done during the surgery" in the surgery section, but this is not always the case - ie it may have been done before, but subject to revision after the operation. See also Burke p. 388 rt col etc.
So as far as I can tell, staging's usually done intraoperatively unless there's some reason not to operate. Burke says "Even with revisions of the staging system in 2009, total hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and bilateral pelvic and para-aortic lymph node dissection continue to be recommended." and Saso says "A meta-analysis of 47 studies that compared the usefulness of computed tomography, ultrasound, and MRI in staging of endometrial cancer found that contrast enhanced dynamic MRI was the most reliable method of identifying patients at high risk of tumour metastasis and presence of local lymphadenopathy." To me this implies that staging can only be completed during surgery and imaging is only preliminary. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but the article doesn't make this clear. Burke has a figure (not in front of me - 20% of cases?) of initial early stage findings pre-surgery that go to more advanced in surgical staging. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what you mean! Okay. Yeah. I've included that information in the staging section now. (The figure was 26% overall, btw - "GOG 33 found that 9% of patients who had clinically determined stage I disease had pelvic nodal metastases, 6% had para-aortic lymphadenopathy, 5% had spread to adnexa, and 6% had other extrauterine metastases at the time of surgery") Better? Keilana|Parlez ici 17:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Brachytherapy can also be used when there is a contraindication for hysterectomy" I couldn't actually find this bit in Colombo - no doubt there somewhere. Our reviewer agreed, but said EBRT was also used for this - both together, or either.
As in, brachytherapy is either used alone (when you can't do a hysterectomy) or as adjuvant therapy? Not sure what the issue is but I've had a brain-frying day... Keilana|Parlez ici 00:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As in "Brachytherapy and EBRT can also be used, singly or in combination, when there is a contraindication for hysterectomy" Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All ok, except for the WCR ref name chapter as above. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about an anonymous scribe in tenth-century England. His elaborate charters are a key source for the history of King Æthelstan's reign. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I reviewed this article for GAN, and observed at the time that it could go to FAC. Since then the nominator has further refined the text, which to my layman's eye is comprehensive; the prose is a pleasure to read, the balance is sound, the sourcing wide and scholarly, and the images are as good as we are going to get for an article about a person whose identity we don't even know. There are two block quotations from different scholars, and I wondered at first if they should be paraphrased, but on closer reading I think not: the first (Keynes) is so precise that paraphrasing it while remaining on the right side of WP rules would be impossible, I suspect, and the second (Gretsch) has a splendid, robust flavour that it would be a pity to lose. I infer (reasonably confidently) from the red-links in the lead that we can look forward to two new articles from the nominator on related topics; I hope so. – Tim riley talk 08:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Tim. About the red links, I am not sure whether they should stay. They certainly need articles, and I was intending to work on them next, but I have changed my mind. They relate to the later tenth century, which I am less familiar with, and I think it would be better to get the earlier period (including Alfred the Great - a major project) out of the way first. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A pity in one way – I can never remember for five consecutive minutes what "hermeneutic" means, however often I look it up, and it would be nice to have an article – but on the other hand an FAC on such a major figure as King Alfred will be more than ample compensation. Bring it on, as I believe the modern saying is. Anyway, warm applause, as above, for the article at present before us, with or without the red-links. Tim riley talk 16:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately hermeneutic style is a misleading name as it has nothing to do with hermeneutics, which is the theory of text interpretation (whatever that is). The elaborate and abstruse style of Latin popular in later Anglo-Saxon England went out of fashion after the Conquest, and William of Malmesbury described it as barbarous. It used to be called the Hibernian style, but scholars did not like that as it was not particularly Irish, and someone came up with the name 'hermeneutic'. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That letter is not in the alphabet that most English readers know. I strongly suggest having an explanation of some sort of how to read that letter. Nergaal (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this refers to "Æ". I am not sure how to deal with it. It has not been raised - so far as I know - with other articles which have Æ, but I see a couple of them such as Ælle of Sussex have the pronunciation. Does anyone know how to do this? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is right, but I'd wait to see if an expert can confirm or amend: /ˈæθəlstæn/Tim riley talk 11:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Tim. Very helpful as always. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In any case Æ is still a part of English, just a somewhat old-fashioned part. You needn't look too hard to find a text that uses it, e.g. Encyclopædia Britannica. Adam Cuerden(talk) 09:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Nergaal. I think the bulk of English-speaking readers are aware that some words are, or were, written with the Æ, and I think that an explanation of "how to read" the letter(s) would be tangential to this article, at best. I do not object to adding a pronunciation guide, although I rarely find them helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You disagree to having a footnote? The Britannica example is not that relevant since that name is actually in Latin-ish. Plus youngsters these days might not have actually know this obsolete example. Nergaal (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the pronunciation kindly supplied by Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images are both in the public domain and appropriately captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Far too many FAs are about video games, and far too few are about scholarly subjects. The article does a good job of making a technical subject readable. I wonder if the WP:LEAD section can be expanded a bit to give a clearer overview of the whole article, and I hope the nominator would put up at least a stub for the two redlinked topics in the Lead, to give readers a better idea of what is being referred to. But these quibbles do not affect my support for promotion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I will work on these points. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the lead. Does it look OK now? Someone has created a stub for the Benedictine Reform and I will have a go at expanding it a bit and creating one for the hermeneutic style. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – looks good and a pleasure to read. Only things I'd do are: link thegn - also "Latin prose revived in the tenth century" - I'd not use "revive" as an active intransitive verb like this...sounds weird to mine ears...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I have linked thegn and revised "revive". Dudley Miles (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed this hasn't had one. Long story short, both images are fine. I've added a PD-Art to the first one. One thing, though: A scanner would likely give a much better reproduction than a photograph. It would be nice to improve this image, but "would be nice to" and "necessary" are a long way from each other. Support. Adam Cuerden(talk) 21:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support. I was not allowed to photocopy because the book is too large. I was quoted 29 pounds for a scan, but I was too mean to agree! Also I am not clear how this would work. If I got a library to scan it for me then I could not say it was my own work, and I do not know whether libraries have scanners which readers can use. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the library, I suppose. If it's that much for the scan, you may want to consider Just buying the book for a bit more. - but I was presuming you owned the book, admittedly. Perhaps it's in a library without as many restrictions that someone has access to? Anyway! This is academic if it's not easy to scan, though I'd see if you could get a less-blurred photo, at least. Adam Cuerden(talk) 22:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Apologies. I was thinking it was a different charter which I had to photo in a library. I do have that book (on loan from a library) so I will try to get a better image. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Direct quotes need to be cited in the lead, even if they're cited again later
Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges. Also check page formatting on FN25
Support. A fine piece of work. I have a few minor quibbles.
The lead says that the style of royal charters simplified after "Æthelstan A"'s retirement, but in the body it says the simplification happened while he was still active.
Revised.
I think a sentence or two is needed in the first body section giving a brief definition or description of charters. Perhaps the note giving Keynes' definitions could be incorporated into the main text? In the lead, a few parenthetical words such as "(grants of rights to land)" would do. I know this is linked but many readers will be stopped dead at the first sentence without this.
I have added the the words to the lead, but I am not sure about putting the note about Keynes's terminology in the main text. He is already quoted extensively on the character of a diploma in the period, and his views on the distinction between a charter and a diploma are a technical matter.
'The witness lists of the "Æthelstan A" charters consistently rank Bishop Ælfwine of Lichfield in Mercia in a higher position than his rank warranted': can we avoid having two different uses of "rank" in one sentence? Perhaps 'The "Æthelstan A" charters consistently place Bishop Ælfwine of Lichfield in Mercia higher in the witness lists than his rank warranted'?
Done.
'Woodman also puts forward the alternative idea that the West Saxon Glastonbury Abbey appears to have been a centre of learning at this time, and that it certainly housed many of the texts which informed "Æthelstan A"'s idiosyncratic Latin style.' I think this needs some rephrasing. Woodman's idea isn't that the Abbey was a centre of learning.
I think that was Woodman's idea, and actually so does he! He kindly reviewed the article and was happy with the statement. He suggested qualifying it with "at this stage" which I changed to "at this time".
It's great to hear that we have someone like him looking at this article; I wish we were able to get more review by subject matter experts. If the sentence reflects his idea, then I guess I'm confused. I had a look through the paragraph again and I think the problem is that I was expecting a structure that paralleled the previous two sentences. Currently we have "Keynes thinks it more likely [he] was a king's priest from Mercia, who ... Woodman considers a Mercian origin likely ...." Both sentences have scholars suggesting origins. The next sentence starts "Woodman also puts forward the alternative idea that ..." and I read this expecting an origin suggestion, which would be an alternative to the other origins; but Glastonbury Abbey being a centre of learning isn't an alternative idea to the other two. What if this sentence were to say something to this effect: "Woodman also puts forward the alternative idea that "Æthelstan A" had a connection with Glastonbury Abbey, which appears to have been a centre of learning at this time, and which certainly housed ...." That seems more directly parallel to the other sentences, and easier to read. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes much clearer. I have added "in Wessex" to clarify that he is suggesting an alternative to an origin in Mercia. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. I've supported above. Congratulations on an excellent article. Are you planning to work on other A-S articles? I used to edit them, mostly focusing on the kings up to about 850, and would be happy to collaborate with you if you're looking for help, though I have no formal training in A-S history. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A great idea. How about Æthelwulf of Wessex, following up your nomination of Egbert? I also have no formal training. I will be on holiday and off wiki from 16 to 24 October. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"King Æthelstan thus took unprecedented control over an important part of his functions." It took me a couple of seconds to realize that this refers to Æthelstan taking control of charter production by making it the work of royal, not local, scribes. The mention of "Æthelstan A"'s retirement before this comment is what threw me off; I would suggest restructuring these sentences so it's clearer what the referent of "thus" is.
Rearranged.
"with the longest Alfred the Great's having only 19 names": I'd mark off "Alfred the Great's" with parenthetical commas. This makes for a rather long sentence with multiple commas, but I think it's still better than leaving it as it stands. However, the end of the sentence is a bit clumsy: "a change of direction, of which what he calls the "peculiar interests" of "Æthelstan A" were just a symptom" is hard to parse, so perhaps a rephrase is in order anyway.
Revised.
"Frankish annalists usually recorded kings' location at Easter and Christmas": should presumably be either "kings' locations" or "a king's location".
Revised.
"He varied the language in each charter out of a delight in experimentation and to demonstrate his literary ability." This seems a very definite statement for what must surely be speculation. I haven't seen the source, but I'd think this should be qualified a bit, either with the scholar's name or by saying something like "It appears likely that".
Attributed to Woodman
Suggest giving the dates when Israel the Grammarian was known to be in Britain.
This is not known but I have specified that it was in Æthelstan's reign.
"galling bitternes" is presumably a typo, but since it's a quote I didn't want to fix it myself.
Corrected.
WP:MOSQUOTE discourages but doesn't forbid linking within quotations; do you think Acherontic and Cocytus have to be linked? The quotation is quite impenetrable anyway and the reader doesn't really need these links to understand what's going on.
I think the links are helpful as some readers may be curious about the meaning of very obscure words.
Most of the time I comment on the word "however" in FAC reviews it's to recommend its removal, but I think it could be usefully added to the start of the paragraph giving Drögereit and Woodman's opinion of "Æthelstan A"'s style.
Thanks for your very full and helpful review. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about an important order of mammals, the rodents. Three of us (assisted by DrChrissy and others) have been beavering away at it for months and have recently brought it successfully through GAN. We think rodents are fascinating animals and hope you think that too, so please don't rat on us but start burrowing in. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have two drive-by comments, I suppose. The first is somewhat facetious. In the "Standard classification" subsection lemmings aren't listed under the family "Cricetidae", and I think they should be (notice my username?) Anyway, I guess that doesn't really matter. On a more serious note, the "Interactions with humans" section only talks about people eating them, keeping them as pets, and using them as lab rats (literally, in some cases). There's absolutely nothing about their depiction in popular culture. Now, you don't need a whole five paragraphs about that (unless you want to put that much effort in), but the pinniped article has a nice one-paragraph summary under the Human relations section; I'd use that as a model. There is no Rodents in popular culture article, at least as far as I can tell, but just include it in a hatnote; there's nothing wrong with red links in FAs. Other than that, the article appears to be quite comprehensive. Good work! AmericanLemming (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've added the lemmings under Cricetidae (I hope you weren't offended!) and we will work on a paragraph or two on "Rodents in popular culture". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. I decided against having a popular culture section because of how large and diverse the group is and such a section is better suited for individual groups like mice or beaver. Unlike bat or shark, there is no cultural "rodent". Pinniped is also not a good comparison as they are far less diverse and culture pretty much knows them all as "seals" (the walrus being the only species with a significant cultural identity). It would be almost like having a "Mammals in popular culture" section for Mammal or "Carnivorians in popular culture" section for Carnivora. Another FA article Primate also doesn't have a popular culture section and I believe for the same reason. LittleJerry (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I see your point. I was wondering whether at some point this issue had already been discussed. Well, I can't really argue with the reasons you've given for not having such a section. Also, searching "rodents in popular culture" in Google, Amazon, and JSTOR doesn't bring up anything of substance, so it would be difficult to write a paragraph on the subject. I did find "Rats-Friends or Foes" in The Journal of Popular Culture, but that would fit better in the rat article than this one. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have made a start on drafting a short section so might as well complete it. Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. That's just the sort of thing I was looking for: short and to the point. A few comments: In the first paragraph on rats, two important literary examples are missing: "The Pit and the Pendulum" by famed Gothic writer Edgar Allen Poe (rats swarm over the protagonist and try to eat him) and the children's classic Charlotte's Web by E.B. White (the gluttonous rat Templeton plays an important role in the plot.) In the second paragraph, we would be remiss not to mention that Mickey Mouse is Disney's mascot to this very day. Third, a good literary example of rats being portrayed as evil and mice being portrayed as good can be found in the late Brian Jacques' Redwall series of books (see the Characters section. AmericanLemming (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The section is all about rats and mice and not rodents. I've asked Cwmhiraeth to remove it. LittleJerry (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with you position on the matter; if rats and mice are the most commonly represented rodents in popular culture, then it makes sense to focus on them. But in the case we do end up removing it, I'd suggest copying and pasting it to the lead section of the List of fictional rodents article. That way Cwmhiraeth's work doesn't go to waste and the aforementioned article gets a decent lead section (right now it's one sentence long). AmericanLemming (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the text to the fictional rodents article. I hope this slight disagreement will not affect your support for the article. LittleJerry (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I think you have some very valid reasons for your position, and I respect that. As far as supporting or opposing, I don't think I've done a thorough enough review of the article to give a recommendation either way. And with school in session, I don't think I'll have time to burrow any further into the article, unfortunately. Anyway, with lemmings now mentioned in the article, my work here is done. :) AmericanLemming (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "Emotions" section has 2 paragraphs (even though they both are addressing the same point). The first paragraph describes the theory and methodology of a cognitive test. This seems to stray away from the topic of rodents - it is a paragraph about an experiment, not about rodents. The second paragraph is about the result of how a some rats did on the test. This is only about rats - is the experiment saying this result is applicable to rodents in general or just rats (that paragraph may be better suited for the rats article)? maclean (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comment. I think I introduced this section. The cognitive bias test is reasonably difficult to understand in principle and practice, and so I described it in a little detail. On reflection, this might be a little long - I was hoping to avoid the reader having to flick to another article to understand this section. The study in rats is extremely interesting because the high frequency ultrasonic call is one of the few contenders of indicating positive welfare that we are currently aware of (think of all the other indicators - they indicate negative welfare, or neutrality). Current knowledge as that only the rat emits this ultrasonic call so it is specific to rats, however, that does not mean that other rodents do not experience the same emotion/s. Remember the rat is widely used as a laboratory animal for reasons of convenience in these studies. Who knows, there might be "Happy Hamsters", "Merry Mice" and "Cheerful Chinchillas" ...but they have yet to be tested.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About forty percent of all species of mammal are rodents - I don't like the singular/plural juxtaposition here...I'd go with "About forty percent of all mammal species are rodents"
''The most diversified mammalian clade, they can be found in a variety of terrestrial habitats including human-made environments. - singular/plural subject
Well known rodents include mice, rats, squirrels, prairie dogs, porcupines, beavers, guinea pigs, and hamsters, but rabbits, hares and pikas are no longer considered to be rodents. - two "rodents' in the one sentence
"'Rodents interact with humans in various ways, and have been put to use as food, in clothing, as pets and as laboratory animals in research. - the facts themselves illustrate the diversity - I'd chop the bolded bit
''Rodents are capable of gnawing though even the toughest husks, pods and seed shells - needs a cite...also some elaboration on which species are strongest etc.
Thank you for your comments. I removed the uncited sentence, there's more about feeding later in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First sentence of Social behavior uncited.
First part of Social behavior section a series of standalone sentences - can we congeal these into 1-2 paragraphs?
Similarly, degus, another social, burrowing rodent - plural/singular disagreement
"'Using olfaction, rodents are able to recognize close relatives. - any reason why we're not saying "by (their) smell"? as it is simpler?
This allows them to express nepotism - "express nepotism" sounds weird to me..."show nepotism"?
Several different mating systems exist among rodents. - I'd remove this as redundant.
Rodents have advanced cognitive abilities and can perform a wide range of tasks. - I think the first part of this sentence is subjective to the point of being pointless - "advanced" compared with a monotreme? probably - to a human? no. Without some context, no meaning is lost by changing to "Rodents can perform a wide range of cognitive tasks."
I have dealt with these suggestions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks comprehensive overall and flows well now. I will do some source checking a bit later. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 07:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing looks ok spot-checkwise for top of article - need to sleep now - more tomorrow. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - I wonder how we can tweak para 1 of Olfactory subsection - way it's written (The chemicals involved are the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) and several urinary proteins, which are detected and interpreted by two olfactory bulbs. ) makes it sound like MHC is secreted, which is not true. Source says "MHC-associated odors in mice are produced through a complex molecular mixture of volatile metabolites bound and released by urinary proteins ", so I think we need a bit of a reword. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
err, a bit better but I think needs a bit of tweaking still. I was very tired when I wrote this last night. I feel better today and will have another look a little later when I get a stretch of time. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'll sit on a tentative support - prose is clear, refs I checked aligned with sources and many more are pretty obvious. One tricky one is now ironed out...and it looks comprehensive and I can't see anything else to fix. But these large articles are tricksy beasts so would not be surprised if something crops up. Good luck. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review. I agree that long articles are more difficult to assess. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
"Bat detectors are often used by pet owners for this purpose." - source?
I don't understand this. Can you explain? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, ellipsis is used to indicate that material from a source has been omitted when quoting. However, it is understood that you cannot possibly be quoting the entire source in this article. For that reason, having ellipses at the beginning or end of a quote, as you do for example in "...for the first time", is redundant. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'm with you. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I promised a while back, I'm here to help. I'd like for us to work through the images first, before I start playing with the prose. This may be a lengthy process.
Check captions for semi-colons where colons would work better (or, for the lead image, a comma that might be better replaced by a colon)
Source link for File:House mouse.jpg (part of your collage) is dead. Otherwise all images in that collage look fine. The collage would look better in the article as a JPG, however.
Can't find a new source link. I suppose we had better redo the collage with a different image. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's because we fixed it already. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Same as the kangaroo rat below. You might want to do a backwards Google search. Will save you the trouble of making a new collage. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that he uploaded the image himself. You can reinsert the NYC rat if you want. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:American Beaver with dam.JPG - You need to create the original author as well, not just the person who made a crop. Otherwise this violates the terms of the upload. I'd link to the source image as well, rather than forcing people to search for it.
We editors discussed this earlier, and preferred this image for its "town" appearance, illustrating rodent societies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Palestine Mole-rat 1.jpg - In terms of quality I'd be surprised if this is a copyvio, but the uploader's history of image problems (check the user's talk page) makes me question this. Can we get something else?
There's nothing else on Commons (for that species). Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still not directing me to that image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed not, the original page seems to have been deleted. If you think this an issue we can look for another image. Done that anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you try a search-by-image on Google, limited to .gov domains? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't quite gone that far! Result is [20]: but it contains the new image that's now in the article, not the original one. The original survives in a few places such as [21]. If you'd like it put back, just ask. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the lighting on File:Kangaroo-rat.jpg better (much easier on the eyes, looks more professional). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Rodent species pie chart.png - Got anything more recent? This is going on ten years old, and I'm concerned that paleontological discoveries / discoveries of new extant species may have changed the balance somewhat.
File:Rhipidura fuliginosa cervina.jpg - Yellow tint is way too much. That needs to be worked on. Also, when did Henrik Gronvold die? How can this be PD-70 if we aren't sure (not on the info page, after all). What's the US copyright? Where's the US copyright tag?
Lightened the image; Grönvold died in 1940 so it's indeed PD-70. Volumes of book were published between 1921 and 1928: if the latter, US PD is uncertain so removing for now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that that's done... I highly recommend removing some images. Personally, I'd take out all the extinct species from the table (you don't have illustrations for all examples, after all) and the bird drawing. Perhaps one or two more. This will both save bandwidth for people on slow connections, allow the page to load faster, and make it look less cramped. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
removed extinct species image column from table, and the bird drawing; awaiting further edits from team. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your image review Crisco. Now that we have dealt with most of your points, I'll have a go at replacing the mouse image in the collage. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See my point above re: the mouse image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
many copies (prob. from WP) but none on nih.gov. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When all else fails, and I have a once-valid URL, I like to try Archive.org's Wayback Machine (https://web.archive.org/web/). And... *drum roll* ta dah! You simply need to add the link to the file page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! I have done that. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
, but rabbits, hares and pikas are now considered to be in a separate order, Lagomorpha - reason for this being included is not immediately apparent. No indication in text that some people think rabbits et. al are rodents
vibrissae - you generally use the more common term, or define the term when linking (i.e. furry parachute-like membranes), but you don't actually write "whiskers"? Why is this?
said and linked whiskers directly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
re-ingests the food from its anus - You mean it ingests pellets, right? It doesn't commit autoanilingus, one would assume (and pass the brain bleach, please). Might want to rework this.
Because the incisors do not stop growing, the animal must continue to wear them down so that they do not grow far enough to reach or even pierce the skull. - Repetition of "growing"
like the blade of a chisel - iron and pounded on by a hammer? Something less idiomatic would be preferable
added "shaped", which is the intended meaning here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This lets rodents suck in their cheeks or lips to shield their mouths and throats from wood shavings or other inedible material, and discard this from the side of the mouth. - "This" last referred to the diastemata, suggesting that the second "this" is also diastemata. I'd add "waste" after the second "this".
Rodents have also thrived in human-created environments such as agricultural and urban areas. - I wouldn't challenge this, and I don't know anyone who would, but considering your experiences at Tree I think you might agree that a citation would be useful (just to be safe)
Prairie dogs can also lead to regional and local biodiversity loss, increased seed depredation and the establishment and spread of invasive shrubs. - A sentence like this should be contrasted with the positive roles mentioned before
It also practices coprophagy, eating its own fecal pellets. - See, this is handled much better. Also, if you defined the term on the first mention, you wouldn't have to define it here.
That's half of the text. Rest tomorrow. Very nice read. Simple enough for a literary major to understand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the young emerge in front of their mother." - In front of their mother ... this is ambiguous. Could be "from the mother's front parts", "in their mother's presence", or "with their mother facing them". Or do you mean the direction in which the young move after being birthed?
we know a great deal about their cognitive capacities. - passive voice would be better, to avoid the human subject. "much is known about their cognitive capacities", for instance
some of them were handled whereas others were tickled by the handlers - I feel "handled" could be better expressed. Tickling is a form of handling, IMO
The author has a M.S. and Ph.D. in Animal Behavior and has studied rats in depth. The site backs up its information with citations from the scientific literature. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if we could have a peer reviewed article or something instead of this. Please keep an eye out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and up to ten re-colonizations of Eurasia. - does this mean Rodentia is thought to have first evolved in Eurasia?
Well, in Laurasia, the precursor of Eurasia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
such as the giant beavers, Castoroides, and a giant dormouse, Leithia, attained great size. - yes, we get that they were big. No need to say it three times in a single sentence. Also, you use "Giant" too much in this paragraph. I count three instances
The hares, rabbits and pikas (order Lagomorpha) have continuously growing incisors and were at one time included in the order. - since this is the first mention in the article body (as opposed to the lead), I'd link. Also, consider starting the sentence with "As with rodents," to remind people why this is important
Monophyly versus polyphyly - unless you develop this section even further, I recommend merging it with above. I have little love for one-paragraph sections
This would not fit in a section titled "Standard classification" and I think it is best left in its own subsection. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consider linking species upon first mention (brown rat, black rat, etc.). You may need to review the entire article for this, as you name drop a lot of species
Done all I could manage. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
they were fed walnuts, chestnuts, and acorns for fattening. - might want to rework, as your subject was "Romans", and I don't think the Romans were being fattened
Among indigenous Amazonians, when large mammals are scarce, - I should think that there are no large mammals living in the indigenous Amazonians. "In the Amazon," perhaps
Nice to see a bit of variety. You may be asked to trim one or two, but this looks good to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks like the only thing missing is making sure the species are linked on first mention, but that's not enough for me to hold back the bold "s". Good work on such a wide topic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I took the liberty of switching the PNG for a JPG like I said above. Compare the two: png, jpg. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the image is considerably clearer. Thank you for doing that and for your support. (I'll do some more linking shortly.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"fore-limbs": My dictionaries show this as forelimbs
done
"Rodents exhibit a wide range of types of social behavior ranging from the first known mammalian caste system of the naked mole rat,[21] the extensive "town" of the colonial prairie dog,[22] through family groups to the independent, solitary life of the edible dormouse.": Missing and
seems not to need an "and" anywhere?
"co-operation": The hyphen is rare in AmEng.
removed
I was reading this too fast to offer support, but I'm comfortable saying that it's lively and readable and not jargony, considering the sometimes technical subject matter. - Dank (push to talk) 20:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update for the coordinators. I was concerned about the comprehensiveness and balance of the article, but I don't have the expertise to assess it fairly. It appears that Ucucha does; since my other concerns are structure and prose, I will wait for Ucucha's pass to be completed before making another pass. I don't feel I can fairly oppose on the grounds of comprehensiveness and balance since I can't speak to those from my own knowledge, so I will leave this as a comment. Once Ucucha's comments are addressed and he either supports or there is no more work being done to address his comments I will take a look again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The last of my comments below have been addressed. My support doesn't include comprehensiveness as I don't have enough background to verify that. I have done some checking for accuracy of representation of sources, and close paraphrasing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add comments below as I go through the article. It's likely to take me at least a day or two to get through this. First pass done.
Since this is a gigantic subject, and I have no background in biology or zoology, I started by looking at the structure of the other FAs at the same level of generality -- bird, primate, and (arguably) ant. Here's what I found for the first few sections:
Bird:
Evolution and classification
Distribution
Anatomy and physiology
Primate
Historical and modern terminology
Classification of living primates
Evolutionary history
Anatomy, physiology and morphology
Ant
Etymology
Taxonomy and evolution
Distribution and diversity
Morphology
Rodent
Characteristics
Distribution and habitat
Behavior and life history
Classification and evolution
Some comments about structure first.
The other three FAs, with some slight variation, start with terminology and evolutionary history. Physical characteristics come later. Can you comment on why you chose this particular organization for this article? This article's layout doesn't seem as logical to me as the others.
We did the same with Crocodilia and starfish. We feel that with the way the section is structured, it would be unattractive as a leading section. LittleJerry (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A closely related point is that the characteristics section reads rather choppily to me, and I think it's because it shouldn't be the first section in the body. Paraphrasing the sequence of sentences: "They're mostly small. Some are very big, like the capybara. They're generally squat. Forelimbs and hindlimbs are such and such; the elbow is like this; they're plantigrade. They not good at running, but some are. Some can hop fast. Semi-aquatic species are like this. Most have tails, some of which are prehensile or vestigial. Flying squirrels can glide." This doesn't feel definitional, or like an introduction or an overview; it feels like an assemblage of facts. I don't think this is the right section to start the article with. It goes straight into details about characteristics with giving any context: nothing about evolutionary history or taxonomic placement. I think it would read much less choppily if it were further down the article. As I said, I have little or no background in biology, and I don't spend time on the bio articles, so this is the opinion of non-expert reader, for whatever that's worth.
It seems choppy because rodents are a diverse group of animals. We can mention common characteristics but there are also exceptions and variations which fit better when mentioned right after the generalizations. The only true defining rodent characteristic is the incisors. LittleJerry (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced. Elsewhere in the article you cite Stefoff's The Rodent Order; what I can see of the "Physical Features" section seems more coherently written than the "Characteristics" section of this article. (One thing I think would help, by the way, is to start the characteristics section with the dentition -- why leave it to a subsection, when it's the defining characteristic? Making that definitive general statement up top would make any choppiness in the remaining section less of a concern.)
Here's how the first five paragraphs of Stefoff's physical features paragraphs are organized:
Dentition - incisors
Dentition - molars
Paws, claws, and toes
Senses - vision
Senses - hearing and smell
To me this is far easier to read and more logically organized than the first paragraph in this article. A separate point is that Stefoff makes some broad statements about anatomy that you don't include -- the opposable toe, the typical types of claws. Any reason not to include that material? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The most defining feature of the rodents is their teeth": why "most"? I'm also not sure what "defining feature" means here; in a context like this I would expect it to mean something like "the characteristic that definitively identifies an animal as being in Rodenta", but that doesn't really work with "most". It's also not stated what's defining about them -- the next sentence says they continue to grow, but doesn't say that's the definitional feature, though I suspect that's the intention.
I gather that the distribution map in the infobox shows only original distribution, since there are now rodents on New Zealand. I think this should be stated in the caption (or you could colour NZ differently to show the increased range).
Compare the first paragraph of the Feeding section in this article with the first main paragraph of the equivalent section in the bird article. The paragraph in the bird article begins with a high level breakdown of bird feeding strategies, then gives a list of specific strategies with examples of birds that use them. The rodent article starts with a general statement too, but then starts listing individual rodents with specific strategies. I think this is the wrong way to present this information; general statements with specific examples is better than specific rodents which are not treated as examples of strategies -- of the four listed in that paragraph, only the field vole is described in terms of a strategy: "a typical herbivorous rodent". The reader isn't given a clear statement of the relative significance of the other three examples. For comparison, the social behavior section in rodent is better at this, though I think it could be tweaked a bit. It starts with a description of the range of social behaviours, gives a couple of examples, then the next paragraph again described a general set of behaviours and follows with examples.
I am not sure I agree with you. I have rephrased the general sentences on feeding slightly. I think 95% of rodents are probably herbivores, a range of the feeding behaviours of which are then illustrated. I'm not sure about the omnivores, but a certain chipmunk was said to have some insect wings among its stomach contents, but whether this is the result of omnivory or the accidental swallowing of insects with plant matter is unclear. As for carnivores, I think there are very few. The teeth are adapted for gnawing after all. So I think it is inappropriate to deal with rodents in a similar way to birds as the latter have a much wider range of feeding strategies. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found it hard to believe there's not much on omnivory or carnivory of rodents, so I looked around. I found this on JSTOR, which seems pretty unambiguous. It's from 1970, so perhaps you'll tell me it's superseded, but if not could this or something similar be used to supply a little more detail? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good source! I have now added a paragraph on omnivory and a bit more on carnivory. These practices seem more widespread than I had previously thought. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the table in the auditory section, the mouse higher limit is given as 91,00; I assume this should be 91,000 but didn't want to change it without checking.
The visual section spends most of its time on UV sensitivity. Is there more that could be said about their visual sense? I know this is within the section on communication, but there is no separate physiology/anatomy section (should there be?).
Senses are touched upon in "Characteristics". LittleJerry (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest linking "conspecific" (in the noun usage, at least) to something explanatory on first occurrence.
"In obligate monogamy, both parents care for the offspring and play an important part in their survival. This occurs in California mice, oldfield mice, Malagasy giant rats and beavers." When you give a list worded in this way, the reader can't tell whether these four species are the only examples or just some of the species in which the behaviour occurs. I would make it clear in this case and any similar sentences.
"Females play an active role in choosing their mate": I can't tell if this is a general statement about all rodents, or just about the species with flexible mating systems. If the former, I think it should start a paragraph and the general nature of the statement should be clearer.
I am doubtful about the value of including the study demonstrating cognitive bias; in a survey article, like this, wouldn't it be better to rely on secondary sources? It's a great result to quote but without secondary source commentary I don't know how to tell if it is regarded as a noteworthy (or even a valid) result by the academic community.
This study was December 2012 so difficult to find much in secondary sources. I have rewritten the paragraph to cut down on the amount of detail included. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded it again; please revert if you prefer the original wording. One reason I rephrased it was that in an article like this we should be making general statements about rats more than giving specific examples of experiments, so I think it's better to say "rats trained to do X are more likely to ..." than "Researchers trained animals to do X .... it was found that they were more likely to ...". I also checked other sources on cognitive bias in rats, and found enough to convince me that this isn't controversial, so I'm striking this. One minor suggestion, not necessary for FAC, is that it might be a good idea to choose a study cited by a secondary source; I found a couple of books with titles like Encyclopedia of Animal Behaviour that cited rat studies on cognitive bias, so this shouldn't be hard to do. The benefit is that there is (presumably) less risk that a study will be found to have flaws if it is being cited in this way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked into this in detail but I doubt that we should cite data based on a single primary paper examining a single species in the overview article for an entire order. Ucucha (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are several studies on cognitive bias in rats. Being a scientist, I am a little perplexed as to why a secondary source would be considered more robust than the primary source. If a news-paper reporter interviews me about my science, there are almost always flaws in their articles, and they are simply not trained to analyse whether the science is good or bad. I also believe scientists should get recognition for their work, rather than reporters for writing about other people's work. So, should I provide other primary sources, or is it wikipedia policy to use secondary sources in preference. I have discussed previously the problem with us knowing a considerable amount about laboratory rats and mice but considerably less about other rodents, but only because they have not been tested. This makes it difficult to know whether we can generalise to other rodents, or whether it is species-specific information. I do not know the answer to this problem...__DrChrissy (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In scientific articles, an appropriate secondary source is generally not a newspaper article, but a survey work by a scientist. For example, in the article on radiocarbon dating, which I've been working on recently, a suitable secondary source is Taylor's Radiocarbon Dating: An Archaeological Perspective; it reviews and summarizes the history of the discipline. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification - that makes sense.__DrChrissy (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have similar doubts about the metacognition discussion -- fascinating, but hard to be sure what weight it should receive. The fact that countervailing studies are cited is good but then that diminishes the interest of the original result.
This could be removed altogether but that seems a pity to me. The study was on rats because of their convenience for use in research, but the behaviours may well be replicated in other groups of rodents. In this case follow-up research is available whereas it was not in the cognitive bias example. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read through it again, and I think it's OK. One minor suggestion before I strike this: change "Rats may have the capacity" to "A 2007 study suggested that rats may have the capacity". The next sentence starts "The researchers" without previously indicating that we were talking about a study. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a FAC issue, but I really think you should give the possible weight of Leithia. Saying "enormous dormouse" and not saying how enormous is just cruel to the reader and guarantees they're going to click away from the article.
You give the derivation of "rodent" in the lead; I think it could be cut from there, but that's a matter of opinion, not something I think is necessary for FAC. However, you cite it as "rōdere" there, but as "rodere" further down in the "Standard classification" section. If the accent is necessary (I don't usually see accents on Latin, so I'm doubtful) then it should be in both places.
"the Ceará and Sierra Leone rises in the Atlantic": I think this is worth a couple of redlinks, per WP:REDYES: perhaps "the Ceará and Sierra Leone rises in the Atlantic"?
Removed as unnecessary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You use "mya" once and "million years ago" several times; I think you should either introduce the abbreviation before using it, or (probably better, given that it's only used once) just replace it with "million years ago".
I think the picture of the East African springhare should be removed; I imagine there aren't many good pictures of the Anomaluromorpha available, but this is quite poor quality and I don't think it's suitable for a featured article.
Please reconsider. We have to get the images we have available. LittleJerry (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FA criteria don't specifically see images need to be high quality, nor that they should be present to illustrate everything that can be illustrated. I wouldn't oppose over this; I just think it's a mistake to use a poor image when you could leave it out. However, I also noticed there's a better spring hare picture embedded in the rodent collage at the top -- could you use that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't look right to use the same picture again. LittleJerry (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking this because it's not an FA issue; I do think it's a mistake to use a poor quality image though. It would be better simply to have no image of this suborder. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Typically in a high level article written in summary style many of the sections should have hatnotes pointing to the more detailed articles. That isn't the case here. If there are no suitable sub-articles, of course you can't link to them; can you just confirm that there are none? Evolution, classification, behaviour, list articles?
That's right. There are no sub-articles on these. LittleJerry (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The naked mole rat is the only known mammal that is poikilothermic and also does not produce the neurotransmitter substance P": it's the only mammal for which both statements are simultaneously true? Or the only one which is poikilothermic, and also the only one that does not produce substance P?
"while in South America losses have reached ninety percent": surely this needs some qualification such as "while in South America some local harvests have reported losses of ninety percent"?
First pass through done. My main concern is whether the sequence of sections is right; most of the points I raise are minor, and I'm sure will be fixed quickly. This is an excellent article; I will have a read through the Crocodilia and starfish and see if that changes my mind about the structure. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. We are working to resolve the issues you raise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say that I'm out of time tonight but will try to return to this tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I think one of the problems we are encountering is that while we might know a great deal about 2 rodents in particular, the rat and the mouse, we know less about the other species. Added to this is the huge diversity of rodents beyond the rat and mouse. There seem to be exceptions to every "characteristics of rodents" making this difficult to write about. There is even one exception to the rodent dentition from which the name Rodent is derived! In my own speciality of animal behaviour and physiology, we know many facts about rats and mice, but whether we can generalise these to all rodents or only some, is difficult to judge. For example, mice and rats have UV visual sensitivity. I doubt very much this has been tested in beavers and capybara, but I would not be surprised if they had this capacity. However, rats appear to have meta-cognition, and although this has almost certainly not been tested in beaver and capybara, I would be staggered if they had this ability. I guess we need to keep editing but discuss these and try to distinguish differences that are interesting and robust. For example, the meta-cognition study is contested (perhaps reducing robustness) but I believe it is the only non-primate to have this ability (increasing its interest....at least in my humble opinion).__DrChrissy (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've convinced me that the metacognition study is worth keeping. I've modified my comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unjustified deletions In the last 24 hours, an editor has deleted both newly added text and long-established text on gliding by rodents. This was done with no justification by the editor and in my opinion, this deletion and the continuing disruptive behaviour of this editor jeopardises the assessment of this article for FA progression.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the edits I think you're referring to, the editor in question is one of the nominators of this FAC, and I think those edits were in response to a comment of mine further up, though I didn't specifically ask for the removal of that material. I'll wait to review that change till I see agreement that it's a consensus edit.
Also, you mention a single species that doesn't conform to the standard rodent dentition -- I assume you mean Paucidentomys? Does the existing description of rodents as characterized by a single pair of continuously growing incisors include Paucidentomys? I'm not clear if "single pair" refers to one tooth in each jaw, or one pair in each jaw. On reflection I would have thought the former, in which case this is accurate for Paucidentomys, but surely not the best way to describe most rodents, which have two pairs of incisors? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Yes, I was referring to Paucidentomys. Because this animal was only discovered in 2012, It could not have been included in the definition of a Rodent according to dentition which must have been used for many years. I have just re-read the reference and this states there is one incisor per quadrant. This means the animal has two incisors on the top and 2 on the bottom; 4 teeth in total. This appears to be corroborated by a plate in the article. If I am correct in this, it means the Paucidentomys article is a little mis-leading by implying it has only 2 teeth in total.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Mike. I would just like to say that I agree with your concern about the "choppiness" of the article. My own style to avoid this is generally to have more sub-headings, but I know some editors disagree with this approach. Yesterday, I spent some time looking at other animal Order pages and below is my "wishlist" if the article were to be re-structured today. Maybe we can take some of these on-board, although I realise wholesale changes are not what is expected at this stage.
While I am not opposed to rearranging sections, creating subsections or changing the names of sections if appropriate, DrChrissy's suggestions imply that we should have sections such as "sexual dimorphism", "locomotion" and "fables" which we currently do not. The first of these could be created by making a subsection within "characteristics", but not the others which would require much extra work. I think it is a bit late in this candidacy to start making substantial reorganizations to the article on this scale. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for considering these - and I understand about the (bad) timing regarding major restructuring. In my own opinion, in dealing with such extensive knowledge at say the Order level of taxonomy, Wikipedia would benefit from having a template for guidance in creating such articles.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interposing regarding Paucidentomys—I don't think it has any bearing on the standard morphological characterization of rodents. The important synapomorphy is a single retained, evergrowing pair of upper and lower incisors, and Paucidentomys still has that character, even though it has lost all molars. Ucucha (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More comments. As Ucucha has struck his oppose and the article is no longer being revised, I'll read through again and leave any additional comments here.
I'd suggestion changing the mating behaviour links in the lead to polygyny in nature and monogamous pairing in animals, rather than the current link targets, which are less specifically about animal behaviour. I'd like to suggest an alternative to the promiscuity link, but I can't find a better target.
"The earliest fossil record of rodents dates to the Paleocene": you don't need both "earliest" and "dates to"; I'd suggest something like "The earliest rodent fossil records are from the Paleocene", or "The rodent fossil record dates back to the Paleocene".
I can't quite make out the point that is being made about jaw musculature. The comparison to squirrels is clear: Hystricomorpha incisors are less capable of gnawing hard nuts. But why do you compare the Hystricomorpha to rats with regard to chewing seeds? Why would the ability to move the jaw further sideways correspond to a softer diet?
I still don't follow. I scanned the cited article and from what I could see there's nothing there that relates the pterygoid muscle to the nature of the diet. Can you point to the part of the source that you're drawing this from? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
End of the abstract and page 920. I have removed the last part of the sentence as it does not seem to be included in the source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You list chipmunks and jumping mice as having female-bias sexual dimorphism, then digress for a sentence, and then add bank voles to the list. Any reason not to just include bank voles in the first list?
I've reverted this because I was mistaken; the reason it was structured the way it was is that the prior sentence discusses voles in general. Here's how it now reads: "In some species, like voles, sexual dimorphism can vary from population to population. In bank voles, females are typically larger than males." I don't have access to those pages in the source via Google Books, but if it quotes bank voles as an exception (because the dimorphism doesn't vary from population to population), perhaps you could join these two sentences with "though" to make it clearer to the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Litter size of naked mole rats is given as "x to x" in the table. If you can't source this, I think it would be OK to remove the parenthesis and just state the average.
Something has gone wrong with the note about the giant dormouse, Leithia; it now says it weighed up to 113 g, which doesn't make it a notable example of a giant rodent. As I recall this was thought to be the heaviest ever rodent.
I think the dimensions were correct but the reference didn't back it up so I removed and gave some dimensions for the giant beaver. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have "infraorbital" linked to a dab page; I couldn't find a better target and I think this should probably be delinked.
"Where large mammals are scarce in Amazonia, pacas and common agoutis can account for 39 percent of the annual game taken by the indigenous people, but in forested areas where larger mammals are abundant, these rodents comprised only about 3 percent of the take": I changed "When" to "Where" at the start of this sentence, but there's another issue -- the first half is present tense; the last clause is past tense. I'd suggest making it all past tense and mentioning the date of the cited study -- the highly specific percentages make it hard to phrase this in a way that could be stated in the present tense as an ongoing generalization.
Rephrased in past tense. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this pass is done. I think the article is much improved. I'm ready to support once the remaining minor points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is difficult to write large overview articles like this and I appreciate the effort that has gone into it, but I think there are some issues of organization and coverage in the article, and I also found some factual errors.
For example, the article does not discuss several important adaptive strategies followed by rodents, such as semiaquaticity in e.g. Crossomys and Oryzomys, kangaroo-like form in e.g. Dipodomys, Jaculus, and Notomys, and fossoreality in mole rats and gophers.
The description of evolutionary history is very abbreviated and does not mention rodent's closest relatives (lagomorphs and some extinct groups) or important extinct groups such as ischyromyids and eomyids.
I have started expanding this. Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The list of extinct rodents is dominated by Pleistocene giant species for some reason and hardly seems representative.
Removed this table as being too arbitrary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The section on conservation does not mention any of the rodents that have gone extinct through human actions, such as Caribbean giant hutias and rice rats.
On the other hand, the section on behavior (especially communication) seems overly long on balance, and I'm not sure the "Monophyly versus polyphyly" debate even merits a mention—this was briefly a topic of discussion in the 1990s, based on bad molecular analyses, but I don't think anyone has supported rodent polyphyly for over a decade.
Removed the subsection. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ucucha: Thank you for your comments. What are the factual errors you mention? We can work on the article with a view to dealing with the issues you raise above and below and I am happy to do so, but your "oppose" seems rather definite and makes me think we should just give up on this candidacy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With "factual errors", I was mostly referring to the first two points below. There were a few other things I noticed that I haven't mentioned yet (e.g., the sentence "During the Eocene, rodents began to diversify; some fossil species were very large compared to modern rodents, including the giant beavers, Castoroides, and an enormous dormouse, Leithia, which is estimated to have weighed up to 113 kg (250 lb)." strongly and incorrectly implies that Castoroides and Leithia are from the Eocene). I plan to read the article more thoroughly and come up with more feedback. Ucucha (talk) 06:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have rearranged this paragraph so as not to give a false impression. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A few other small points (I haven't read everything in detail):
"The Sciuromorpha, or squirrel-like rodents, have a very simple jaw muscle that extends onto the snout in front of the eye. The Myomorpha, or mouse-like rodents, have jaw muscles that anchor on the side of the nose – these are the most efficient chewers amongst the rodents. The Caviomorpha, or cavy-like rodents, have very large cheekbones and muscles that anchor to the side of the face." This refers to morphological patterns known as "sciuromorphous", "myomorphous", and "hystricomorphous", which do not correspond perfectly with the names of suborders like Sciuromorpha. (For example, glirids are not sciuromorphous even though they are in Sciuromorpha.)
You may well be right about this, but the present content of the article follows the source. Can you cite a source to back up what you say and then I could amend the article? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources need to be read in context. How do you know your source uses the definitions of Sciuromorpha, Myomorpha, and Hystricomorpha used in this article. Also, the source cited for this fact (http://science.jrank.org/pages/5920/Rodents.html) is not a high-quality reliable source. Ucucha (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have rewritten the sentence from a 2011 anatomy paper (Cox & Jeffery), naming the animals studied. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Brandt (1855) was the first to propose dividing the Simplicidentata (rodents and their closest extinct relatives) into three suborders, Sciuromorpha, Hystricomorpha and Myomorpha, based on the development of certain muscles in the jaw." The name Simplicidentata is currently used for a taxon that includes rodents and a few extinct relatives, but this is not what the word meant in Brandt's day. At the time, lagomorphs were still considered rodents, and the order was divided into Duplicidentata (lagomorphs, with two pairs of upper incisors) and Simplicidentata (rodents as defined now, with one pair). I'm not sure this subtlety has to be discussed in the article (you can avoid by just not mentioning the term Simplicidentata), although it would be interesting to discuss the historical classification of lagomorphs as rodents.
The phylogenetic tree in the "Standard classification" section has an overabundance of dipodids. That is in agreement with the source, but that study probably overrepresented dipodids because the first author got his PhD on dipodids (I remember attending his defense :) ) and so had a lot of them available. This article should give a good representation of the relationships among rodent families, not blindly reproduce a single source.
I have reduced the number of dipodids mentioned. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the rodent families themselves have remained relatively stable," "Relatively" can mean a lot of things, but there are several areas where disagreements over the family-level classification of rodents have persisted until recently (e.g., muroids, dipodoids, echimyids and related groups).
One more thing: I would avoid referring to "rats" or "mice" anywhere. Both are imprecise terms that can refer to dozens of species; we should specify the species (likely the house mouse, brown rat, or black rat) wherever possible. Ucucha (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked Ucucha whether he is satisfied with my responses to the issues he raised above and whether he wishes to raise any more. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some more comments:
The infobox says rodents first appeared at 61.7 Ma. What is the source for this very precise number?
Replaced with a conservative 56mya, the very end of the Paleocene, since we know rodents lived in that epoch. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The name is derived from the Latin rodere, to gnaw." Is this really important enough to be in the second sentence?
"There is a gap, or diastema, between the incisors and the molars." In many species, it's between the incisors and the premolars. This is also technically not true for Paucidentomys, which has no molars or premolars.
"The molars are relatively large, intricately structured and covered with convoluted ridges of enamel, which are arranged transversely." This is an oversimplification, though it is true for many species. For example, "shrew mice" (e.g., Pseudohydromys) have small and simple molars. I am not sure what "convoluted ridges" mean exactly. Many species (e.g., most murines) have distinct cusps that are not arranged in ridges.
"The smallest rodent is the Baluchistan pygmy jerboa which averages only 4.4 cm (1.7 in) in head and body length, and adult females weigh only 3.75 g (0.132 oz)." Hmm, always thought it was Mus minutoides, but from the figures in our article this does appear to be correct.
"Scaly-tailed squirrels and flying squirrels, although not closely related, can both glide from tree to tree". This is also true for some extinct species of Glirulus and Eomys, though whether to include that is a matter of judgment.
"The Texas pocket gopher avoids emerging onto the surface to feed by seizing the roots of plants with its jaws and pulling them downwards into its burrow." Why are these random species listed?
As examples of different types of herbivory. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"numerous members of the Sciuromorpha and Myomorpha and a few members of Hystricomorpha". Note that this old source likely used these words in a different sense than this article does.
Even so, this statement is likely to be accurate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"shrewlike rats of the Philippines". There are similar but not closely related "shrew rats" in Sulawesi and New Guinea (e.g., Echiothrix, Pseudohydromys).
The source uses "shrewlike rats" so it seems best for the article to do likewise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the eusocial naked mole rat and Damaraland mole rat." The only source cited for this paragraph does not mention the Damaraland mole rat. Also, I haven't checked the literature but it seems unlikely that it is the only species of Fukomys to be eusocial.
Added source for Damaraland mole rat and removed unsourced statement. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"It has been reported that brown rats and shrews" Shrews are not rodents.
"Rodents have just two types of light receptive cones in their retina," The source cited a few sentences later does not seem to support this statement (and is not a high-quality reliable source).
"A 2007 study suggested that laboratory rats". One study suggesting something about one species does not seem like an appropriate piece of information for a summary article.
Removed the phrase and reduced the paragraph involved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The fossil record of rodent-like mammals". What are rodent-like mammals? Especially since the next sentence defines this as distinct from Glires.
"From Africa, fossil evidence shows that some hystricognaths migrated to South America, which had been an isolated continent during the Oligocene and Miocene epochs,". And also during the Eocene and much of the Paleocene.
The article goes back and forth between mentioning geological epochs (e.g., Eocene) and absolute dates (e.g., 39 Ma). This is confusing for those who don't know the dates of the Eocene and Oligocene by heart.
I think mentioning dates as well as epochs is helpful to readers unfamiliar with the dates involved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"There is a dearth of fossil evidence covering the transition from the Eocene to the Oligocene, some 34 million years ago. TheTheridomyidae and Eomyidae bridged the gap but have not survived to the present day and their phylogenetic significance is unclear." All of this is cited to a 1955 article; rodent paleontology has progressed since then. I don't believe the statement is meaningful with the current state of knowledge.
"By 20 million years ago Miocene fossils recognizably belonging to the current families such as Muridae appear". Recognizable members of extant families such as Gliridae, Sciuridae, and Castoridae appeared long before. And I'm not sure what recognizable members of Muridae this is referring to.
"ten true rats (Rattus), of which eight are 'new endemics'". The last two are introduced by humans and therefore not endemics. This wording seems confusing to me though—people unfamiliar with the topic may infer that the last two are Old Endemics.
"molecular data has shown that the radiation of the hydromys division of Murinae to which these rodents belong started in south-east Asia some 15 to 20 million years ago". This cites a source from 1995. Molecular data that old is worthless given the progress in the field since then. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18313945 may be a better source. Also, the "Hydromys Division" is a smaller group than the whole Old Endemic radiation.
New source for molecular data used. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"After the Americas became joined by the Isthmus of Panama, around 3 million years ago," The arrival date of sigmodontines in South America is more controversial than this blanket statement suggests.
Expanded and explained. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"is known as the "classical" arrangement." I have not heard of this term before for Brandt's system.
The classification needs a separate source for Diatomyidae, which was not included in Carleton and Musser (2005). Ideally the classification should also include extinct families, but there is no recent comprehensive classification of fossil rodents.
Added source for Diatomyidae. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All your comments have been dealt with (I think). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These are just some samples of issues. I am not happy with the quality of the sourcing in general; many sources I checked for doubtful-looking statements are either websites without proper peer review (therefore, not high-quality reliable sources) or out of date. Ucucha (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are encouraged to use reliable secondary sources rather than relying on primary sources which have not necessarily been accepted by the scientific community. Please indicate which sources you feel are unsatisfactory so that we can try to improve them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha made his comments about the sourcing a week ago and since then we have been through all the article's 150 or so references, removing and replacing some sources as necessary, and think they are all now of high quality. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "Introduction to the Rodentia" source is used twice (1, 116). 155.138.247.201 (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have combined them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses. I don't have time right now to review the article again and decide whether I can now support, but I've provisionally struck my oppose. Ucucha (talk)
An impressive amount of work tackling a major topic. I'm not an expert on mammals, but I couldn't see any obvious omissions—for example I searched for the expansion of the Polynesian Rat. A few comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(The columns are sortable. † denotes recorded in captive animals)—I don't like having instructions in text. Either put this in a header row, or, better, footnote the info
kestrels can distinguish between old and fresh rodent trails — The source refers specifically to the Common KestrelFalco tinnunculus, not all kestrels. You can't extend it to the other species, even though it's likely to be true
the brown rat, the black rat and the house mouse) have been dispersed in association with humans, partly on sailing ships in the Age of Exploration, and with a fourth species in the Pacific, Rattus exulans,—Why common names for three, and binomial for Polynesian Rat?
The use of beaver fur in Europe is misleading. It isn't the whole pelts that were used, it's the soft inner fur that can be felted. Similarly for the coypu; it's the inner nutria, not the coarse outer fur
Thank you for your comments. I have made the alterations you suggest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No other significant concerns, changed to support above, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- It looks like a fair bit of time has been spent dealing with the issues raised by Ucucha, so I'd like to hear back on how things are looking now. Also there are still a few duplinks that you could review with the checker to see if they're necessary (which some may be in an article of this length). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the overlinks and removed all but one; it is a judgement call as you say. Cwmhiraeth and I believe we've addressed all the causes of Ucucha's now provisionally lifted oppose. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Following up, as Mike is still in the middle of a further pass at the review, I'll leave this open for the weekend. After that, assuming no remaining issues, I'd expect we could safely close. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support On prose per Cas Liber and Crisco 1492. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Rationalobserver. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Have brought this up from a stub, which I created. Feel it is up to par for Bird FAs. I will fix things pronto. Go for it. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of colwidth
The turquoise parrot (Neophema pulchella) is a parrot of the grass parrot genus Neophema —Triple repetition of "parrot" in one sentence. Suggest replacing second occurrence by "bird", and linking "parrot" in the next sentence.
Nothing about parasites? Parrots are usually well studied for these
there is a pathogens section toward the bottom. It mentions a nematode too. it was slim pickings with this one...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Generally a solid article. Some points, mostly on the prose (I don't think this article is as polished as some of your FACs):
"The male is predominantly green in colour and more yellowish below with a bright turquoise blue face and red shoulders on the predominantly blue wings." - This is a very clunky sentence.
"The two are an allopatric species pair, and are the only two species in the genus to exhibit marked sexual dimorphism." - I know these terms are wikilinked but it is helpful to the average reader not to have to click through to other pages to find out what they mean.
sexual dimorphism is easy to explain, the other is tricky without adding a great wad of text - Iwas tempted to add a footnote..but then pondered whether the bluelink is doing the same thing...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The cere and orbital ring" - ditto.
changed the latter to eye-ring; I could add "The waxy strip at the base of the bill known as the cere..." - but it comes across a bit clumsy...?Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the Description section you use such sentences as "...the female has a broad white bar visible on its underwing." I consider "its" is awkward here and would personally use "the".
hmm, I have no strong preference - "its" sounds slightly better to me but I am not at all fussed to change them Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence starting "The turquoise parrot inhabits " is too long and needs splitting.
I've stared at that sentence - although long it's fairly simple and just segues into a long list. I can't see where to splice it without making it sound ungainly.
"Birds are present in some areas all year, though in northern Victoria are thought to move into more open areas outside the breeding season." - I think this could do with a noun or pronoun as subject for the second part of the sentence.
"The population was tentatively estimated at 20,000 breeding birds in 2000, with around 90% residing in New South Wales, and is thought to be increasing." - This is a bit awkward.
The New South Wales subsection is a bit disjointed, and I thought the "pie filling" bit a little odd.
I've rejigged this bit - yes the pie-filling is odd...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know why this bird has experienced such wide population swings?
many arid nomadic species can have wide population variations. It is a bit of a mystery and haven't seen much discussion on it other than to note itCas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"... roost in the foliage ..." - Perhaps "among" would be better here.
personally I could go either way, but there's another "roost in" nearby so changedCas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are several rather short sentences in the Behaviour section.
split off end as eating introduced weeds notable - otherwise shortish bit in beginning is split with semi-colon and I can't bust list easily.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You use the word "hollow" in several places. To me this means a "shallow depression". Do you mean a hole or crevice in a tree rather than a mere depression?
Yes - in fact I just stumbled over tree hollow..it is essentially a wooden burrow. linked nowCas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The clutch is laid on a bed to wood dust or leaves ..." - "of" rather than "to"?
"The chicks are altricial and nidicolous;" - More jargon terms unhelpful to the average reader.
now explained in the sentence immediately followingCas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph of Breeding needs rearranging as incubation currently comes after chick rearing. Some other sentences in this section do not unite well either.
"A yellow form, where the yellow and red pigments are conserved alone," - What does this mean?
it means the parrot has lost the blue pigment in its plumage, leaveing it yellow and red alone. clarifiedCas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with the changes you have made and am now supporting this candidacy on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. (You could wikilink or explain sedentary, nomadic, scapular and migrate with advantage). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dudley
"It was described by George Shaw in 1792, its species name Latin for "pretty"." This does not sound right grammatically to me. I do not think you need the second part about pretty in the lead.
"Italian ornithologist Tommaso Salvadori erected the new genus Neophema in 1891," Do you 'erect' a genus? Also I would say here Neophema are the grass parrots, which you imply but do not quite say below. Perhaps something like "Italian ornithologist Tommaso Salvadori gave grass parrots the genus name Neophema in 1891,"
I change to 'defined' as the genus/group of species were not recognised before this.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Heading 'Conservation status'. I would leave out the sub-heading Australia as superfluous.
"classified as near threatened by Garnett and Crowley in 2000.[23] Its population and range have varied wildly; widely distributed across eastern Australia from Mackay to Melbourne, it vanished from much of its range to the extent that it was presumed extinct in 1915." 'Wildly' seems to me a bit extreme - perhaps 'considerably'. Also these sentences jump around confusingly in dates. It would be helpful to say when it was widely distributed - as "up to the mid nineteenth century it was widely distributed...but it then vanished"?
the population and range variation has been described as pretty extreme for a bird, so I felt "wildly" conveys this well. I have rejigged the material into chronological order.
I am confused about its conservation status. In the infobox it is shown as 'least concern', but in the text as vulnerable and threatened. If this is different bodies taking different views, I think this needs explaining.
tried to clarify - Garnett and Crowley classified all Australian birds, but this was not taken up by our federal government - hence I have rewritten to state they proposed it as the Action Plan was not official policy as such. Nationally, numbers have bounced back somewhat, but I have no source that links it to the lack of national listing.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Clutches tended to be larger (have more eggs)" Why not "Clutches tend have more eggs"? Why the past tense 'tended'?
Is it known whether they pair for life or choose a new mate each year?
just trawled through the material - can't find this mentioned anywhere (!) - I suspect something like the former but can't confirm. The parrot's biology is only moderately known...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A first rate article. These quibbles are all minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support.
One final point. "One of six species of grass parrot in the genus Neophema, it is most closely related to the scarlet-chested parrot." Does this mean that Neophema is the genus name for grass parrots or are there grass parrots in other genuses? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
not sure whether it's the pet trade or what but there seem to be some nebulous terms such as "parakeet" that get applied here and there. The group are called grass parrots, so it is sort of that Neophema=grass parrot, however one has been moved to a different genus and I wonder if the name has been applied to the budgie at some point as well (it is a simlar size but only distantly related). Will check a bit later todayCas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- Cas, I did find the opening sentence a bit of a mouthful so it might benefit from splitting, but won't hold up promotion on that account. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian - I trimmed a bit - as it is a bit redundant to say it is both a parrot and a bird.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This the third of Michigan's four mainline Interstate Highways, and it's also the only state section of Interstate 69 that's complete in the US now that the highway is being extended to Mexico.The article has undergone expansing to fill it out before a GAN and an ACR in the last year. With any necessary minor adjustments, it should be good to go for the bronze star. Imzadi 1979→ 05:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thoroughly reviewed the prose for grammar, spelling, flow and consistency at ACR. In addition, I requested several things to clarify the history, all of which were delivered. Most important to me is the map that is currently the third image in the history section, which provides a quick visual reference to the technical and detailed synopsis alongside. I requested this map with a pending support at ACR, and am pleased to see it in place. Despite being a WP:HWY member, I wish to emphasize an "external" support for how well this article informs me of the relevant geographical information without even requiring an external map. Very few geographical articles can achieve this so comprehensively, which is why I have taken the time to write this extended support. - Floydianτ¢ 06:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and believe that it meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 04:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent page, meets all the FA criteria. --Carioca (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - all OK
images are CC "own work", verified via OTRS, PD-USGov or various forms of PD-age - OK.
sources and authors provided - OK.
map information includes source data - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Having stumbled here from my FAC, I thought I'd comment, as I usually do for Michigan FAC's now :)
" future Interstate" - I understand when you say "Interstate Highway System", that the first word is capitalized, but when you use it as a synonym for highway, I don't think it should be capitalized
"The first freeway segment given the I-69 designation opened in 1967" - I think this could be written better as "The first freeway segment designated as I-69 opened in 1967." Makes it cleaner.
"I-69 is listed on the National Highway System (NHS) for its entire length.[4] The NHS is a network of roadways important to the country's economy, defense, and mobility." - I know you use this for most interstates, but would you be opposed to having something like - "The entirety of I-69 is listed on the National Highway System (NHS), which is a network..." That way it's just one sentence.
"; the highest and lowest traffic counts in 2012, respectively" - not sure a semicolon is appropriate here. I think a dash is better, but it could just be a regular comma.
"The freeway intersects the northern end of the business loop immediately east of downtown at an interchange that also features US 12 (Chicago Road)." - I feel like this sentence could be cleaner by shifting it around. "Immediately east of downtown, the freeway intersects the northern end of the business loop at an interchange that also features US 12 (Chicago Road)."
"Further north" - any time it's distance or location, it should be "farther"
" the freeway curves around to the northwest" - curves around what?
The text is a bit squished... could you remove one of the pictures of the road from the road in the route description? The bridge and the aerial view ones are great, but the ones from the car don't add enough to warrant having two. I also don't think the Indian trail one is needed. JMHO
Why no link for Highway 402 in the route description? Most others are linked.
All in all a good read! I'll be happy to support after these comments are addressed. Cheers. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanhink: I apologize that I missed your comments the other day when you posted them. I think they got lost on my watchlist in a flurry of poor editing I needed to revert to dozens of other Michigan highway articles that day. In any case, I switched your bullets for numbers so that I could reply here to specific points. Anything not called out below has just been fixed as suggested, or substantially similarly.
1. I disagree, and the capitalization is actually important in this case. An interstate highway (lower case) merely crosses state lines, and U.S. Route 27 would meet that definition. By capitalizing it, we are specifying that it is a component of the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways, aka the Interstate Highway System. I would also note that not all Interstates are interstate in character. (Interstate 96 would like to say hello.)
8. I tried viewing the page at several different window widths, and I'm not getting any squishing of text. The exception is the text to the left of the 1957 map in the History section at narrower widths, but that's only to be expected with a map that needs to be forced wider to stay legible. As for removing the Indian trails map, I can do that once I find a replacement. (I prefer to have at least one image or illustration per subsection of article to avoid turning the page it a wall of unillustrated text.)
As always, I appreciate the review. Imzadi 1979→ 04:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: map swapped out with one from 1919 showing the route of the original M-29, another of I-69's predecessors. Imzadi 1979→ 07:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks for the replies. I'm happy to support now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only fair since I've asked for an image and source review for my FAC as well.
2 and 73: consider delinking red links
I hate to ask, but is Google Maps a reliable source?
Is there some kind of directory (Google Books-style) you can link to for the maps? So little information about them is provided - even though I trust they say what you've attributed to them, the reader mightn't.
Spotchecks:
30: good
61: good, but why does the citation say "p. 1" if it's numbered "538"?
69: good - "newly opened" in first paragraph
79: good
59: good - it's weird for them to write it "n0n-chargeable"...
I know they're not forbidden; I just find them unseemly and many editors simply don't realize they're there, that's all. Tezero (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is, especially in how it is used in this article. Google Maps is being used for the aerial/satellite view, and it's paired with the official MDOT map. That official map gives carries the imprimatur of the government agency that maintains the road, and it has the full routing, but it lacks details that can be found in the aerial/satellite imagery conveniently provided through Google Maps.
No, there isn't, and we don't require sources to be located online for our use. Where they are not, we expect readers to consult physical libraries. The Library of Michigan has a full archive of the maps, and the few they don't have are a couple of blocks away at the MDOT Library. There are other libraries that archive them as well. (I'd also note that our policy only requires the information to be verifiable, not verified.)
I know we don't require it; it just seems like a very small amount of information to give a reader considering how onerous the sources would be to find. Tezero (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for footnote 61, "p. 1" refers to the individual agenda/minutes. The "538" is a hand-written number that means that specific document started on the 538th page in a single binder, but the individual documents were separated when AASHTO uploaded them on their website. If a reader were to consult a copy of the document obtained from elsewhere, that "538" would be absent as it is not a part of the original document.
Just one quick comment, but spotchecks and source reviews are somewhat separate concepts. While it never hurts to spotcheck sources, that's not what a source review entails. Rather, a source review is just to evaluate the formatting (consistency) and reliability of the sources cited. As for a spot check, that was also done in the ACR for this article earlier this year as required for promotion in that process. Imzadi 1979→ 05:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The FAC coordinators won't necessarily know that a spotcheck has already been done if it's in a separate page and you haven't linked it. Tezero (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I can support, then, if what you say of all of these sources is true. Tezero (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- Tks Tezero for that review. Yes, the "source review" is for formatting and reliability while the "source spotcheck" means randomly choosing a few of the article's references and making sure they're used accurately and without plagiarism or close paraphrasing. In this case I was happy to just see the former review, which means I think we can close this now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a 2011 American independent documentary film about human trafficking and contemporary slavery. The article received a copyedit from a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, and was later promoted to good article status. The people who made the documentary have been very generous with sharing production images, and I believe the article is now feature-worthy. Neelix (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a first step, please reduce the quantity of wikilinks. I count 18 in the first para that could be removed without any likely reader suffering. EddieHugh (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the recommendation, EddieHugh! I have gone through the article and removed 57 wikilinks that might be considered superfluous. I assume that 13 of the 18 links you count in the first paragraph are the country names. Please correct me if I am wrong. These links are not to the articles about the countries themselves, but rather to the articles about human trafficking in those respective countries, which I think directly relevant to the subject of this article. Do you disagree? I would prefer retain these specific links, but I am willing to remove them if consensus is in favour of it. Please let me know if there are any remaining wikilinks you think unnecessary, or if you have any further recommendations with respect to the article. Neelix (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a start, but there are still lots that just don't need to be there, as they're well known (e.g., New York City, New York, Americans, United States, child abuse, brothel) or self-explanatory even on the off chance that a reader doesn't know the term (e.g., investigative journalist, international economics, international security, international health, addicted to sex, sex slaves). See what other people suggest; to me, a sea of blue in the lead, especially of links to things that I (think that I) know about, is off-putting. EddieHugh (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the article again and removed more wikilinks, including all of the ones you mention except the one to Sexual slavery, because sexual slavery is one of the main topics discussed in the film. Again, I am certainly willing to remove this and other links if there is consensus to do so. Please let me know if you feel that the wikilinks should be diminished further. Neelix (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article appears to meet the FA criteria—it is well-written, with no typos or grammar errors as far as I can tell; everything is well-sourced, with no dead links; and the subject is covered comprehensively and in a neutral manner. Regarding the wikilinks, I would recommend not linking to any article more than once. "Death by burning" is linked twice in the first paragraph of the interviews section, and a number of the terms, individuals, and organizations are linked two or three times throughout the article. However, after reading over Wikipedia:FA criteria, I don't believe that the linking disqualifies the article from meeting FA standards. --1ST7 (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your support, 1ST7! I have removed the duplicated link to Death by burning. Using the "Highlight duplicate links" tool, I don't see any other duplicated links, unless you count links in image captions, which I believe are supposed to be included even if they also appear in the body text, but please correct me if I am incorrect on this point. I greatly appreciate your encouragement with respect to the article. Neelix (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome! Most of the links I was referring to are in the lead, and then linked again later in the article, and sometimes in the image captions as well. I was under the impression that terms that are linked in the lead don't need to be linked again later in the article, but, while reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, I found this sentence: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." So you are correct about duplicates being fine when they are in the lead or the image captions. Best of luck with the rest of the FA review! --1ST7 (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will jot thoughts as I read through—body first, then lead and infobox.
Themes
Have copyedited a bit here. Last sentence of the first paragraph in particular needed some redrawing as it included the word "international" four times.
"The film provides a variety of evidence for its assertion that human trafficking is slavery." Like what?
Have reconstructed somewhat the part about the other movies' presentation of slave imagery. Admittedly I have not seen Blake Snake Moan but so far as I know Ricci's character is not identified as a slave. The source (Rhodes) does not make such an assertion, instead stressing the usage of slave imagery in the marketing.
Contents—Live footage
Copy-edited here.
Contents—Interviews
Copy-edited here a bit.
I think this section is too detailed and focusses too heavily on Angie. I would suggest some trimming.
Do we really need to say Sheila White is black? (Are we then to automatically assume that Angie, Melissa etc are white?) In my opinion it is better to avoid describing people primarily by their race.
Production—Background
Copy-edited a bit. Generally looks good.
Production—Filming
Copy-edited.
Production—Editing
Copy-edited a bit. Generally looks good.
Release
Copy-edited.
Reception
Copy-edited a bit. Rearranged very slightly.
Lead and infobox
We say in the body that "Susan Tedeschi, Derek Trucks, and Dave Brubeck contributed to the film score", but in the infobox we just have Chris Brubeck.
Copy-edited a bit.
Try to avoid summer/winter as a definition of time—remember that for a lot of people summer is December. Have changed this.
Thank you very much for the copyedit and comments, Cliftonian! You have been quite thorough. Here are my responses:
With respect to the statement that "the film provides a variety of evidence for its assertion that human trafficking is slavery," I feel as though it would be misplaced interpretation on my part to identify examples of how the film supports this assertion; the film doesn't directly lay out supporting arguments for the assertion, and the Stone Canoe reviewer doesn't clarify what she means by this statement. I would be more comfortable removing the statement entirely rather than including examples. What are your thoughts? The "Human trafficking is slavery" sentence still appears at the beginning of the "Contents" section.
I think that's probably best, as it really goes without saying that the film provides evidence for this assertion. —Cliftonian(talk) 08:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have cut some of the information about Angie in order to shorten the "Interviews" section. Please let me know if you think this section should be further reduced in length.
I still think the passage was too detailed compared to the descriptions of the other interviewees. Grace Akallo had three sentences, Eugenia Bonetti had one, Tournecuillert had two. Angie had about 10, I think. I've cut the section down a bit more to try to even things out. How much of this stuff is actually in the film, and how much of it is background material? Do we know how much time passed between Angie being abducted and being rescued during Stormy Nights? Also in one paragraph we say she and Melissa were "teenagers" and in the next we say she was 12. Was she rescued by the FBI specifically, or by regular police during the FBI operation? —Cliftonian(talk) 08:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with the reduction in information with respect to the Angie interview. As far as I have been able to ascertain, Angie's identity has not been revealed to the public; I put all the information I could find about her in the article. She was 12 when abducted and continued to be trafficked into her teens. Are you pleased with the current state of the information presented on the subject of this interview? Neelix (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How much of the information we present about her in the "interviews" section is actually in the film, and how much is background knowledge? I would be interested to know this regarding the other interviewees as well. We should be clear regarding what is actually in the film and what isn't. —Cliftonian(talk) 04:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of the information that relates to Angie that remains in the article, the only part that isn't stated in the film is that her trafficker required her to engage in forty sex acts each night. I have reworded the relevant sentence so that this difference is explicit. Neelix (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the word "black" in reference to Sheila White.
I have added the other musicians to the infobox.
Thanks again for your copyediting and advice! I would be glad for any other feedback you have to offer. Neelix (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem David. Glad to help. Hope you're well. —Cliftonian(talk) 08:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really necessary to wikilink and name Bilheimer and Young in full in the image captions every time they appear? Bilheimer is linked in the captions five times, Young three times. I think this is excessive and we could easily cut these down after the first usage to simply "Bilheimer" and "Young".
That makes sense. I have done as you recommended. Neelix (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps tell the reader that the Oaxaca FilmFest is in Mexico. —Cliftonian(talk) 04:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why that would be helpful. The information has been added. Neelix (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
Reference 7—why are we using a version of the article in Portuguese when it's available in English here?
Why do we refer to "UNRIC" in acronym and the "United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking" in full? Either is fine but be consistent.
Reference 50 (Lincoln's Cottage) needs a publisher
BORDEReview is a work, not a publisher. The publisher is Frontex.
Thank you for reviewing the sources in this article. I have switched the Portuguese source for the English version, spelled out UNRIC, added a publisher to Reference 50, and fixed the publisher in Reference 56. Neelix (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Chris Brubeck mentioned in the infobox in relation to the score but not in the body? I see the Pereira source mentions Dave Brubeck and not Chris. I suspect that Pereira may be confusing Chris with his much more famous father, but procedure says we must go with the sourced statement. Nevertheless if we can add something mentioning Chris's contribution that would be good.
Also shouldn't stuff about the film score be under "editing"?
"Bilheimer expressed his willingness to release 15-minute excerpts from the film if that would reach a broader audience." when?
"In a 2012 interview, Bilheimer said that he considered A Closer Walk and Not My Life to be the first two installments in a trilogy; he intended to make an environmental film called Take Me Home as the third installment.[12] As of 2013, however, the Worldwide Documentaries website stated that Bilheimer was considering making his next film on a different subject, such as poverty in the United States, the aftermath of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, or posttraumatic stress disorder among U.S. Army veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.[13]" I don't think this passage fits in the section it's in at the moment. Perhaps move it down to the bottom of the release section? —Cliftonian(talk) 10:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a new source to explain how Chris Brubeck was involved in the film; he produced the theme song, which Dave and the other two musicians performed. I have moved this information to the "Editing" section, clarified when Bilheimer made the statement about releasing the film excerpts, and moved the information about the planned trilogy to the end of the second-last paragraph in the "Release" section. Thank you for your continued grappling with this article, Cliftonian. Neelix (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great, that's a big improvement. I think the article looks in really good shape now but I still have a few points for you to consider.
I'm still not totally comfortable with the "Release" section, which is good but, I think, a little too detailed. Is it really necessary to list every time and every place the film has been screened? I don't think it's really notable, for example, that the headmistress of a high school missed a school football match to see the movie.
Other parts we could lose include the first section of the third paragraph (down to reference 17), which to my eye just seems to be repeating what we said in the "Production" section (third paragraph under background), and the part about the screening with the panel discussion after it. —Cliftonian(talk) 15:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have shortened the "Release" section as you recommended, removing one of the images in addition to much of the content about unremarkable screenings and the repetition of the information about starting a contemporary abolitionist movement. Please let me know if you think the section should be shortened further. Neelix (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After thoroughly reviewing the article I'm comfortable now supporting it for FA status. Well done David on another fine piece of work! —Cliftonian(talk) 17:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would suggest either expanding the lead image caption or removing it entirely - just "poster" doesn't add much
File:Antoniomariacosta-200.jpg: source link returns "authorization required" error. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the image review, Nikkimaria! I have removed the lead image caption and replaced the image of Antonio Maria Costa with one from the Commons. Please let me know if there are any remaining issues with the images, or if you have any other recommendations regarding the article. Neelix (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Live footage - talibes are referred to as children and photo shows boys and girls but entry defines them as boys. Iztwoz (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contributing to the discussion, Iztwoz! Why do you believe that there are girls in the photo? As far as I can tell, all six children in the photo are boys, as is indicated both in the article and in the image description at the Commons. Neelix (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was very late when I looked at article! I have since changed children to schoolboys. Iztwoz (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that; it makes the situation clearer. Do you have any remaining concerns regarding the article's quality, Iztwoz? Neelix (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks fine, to me - though I would support Blue Rasberry's sentiments. Iztwoz (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – This is a fine article, and I feel mean for raising petty drafting points, but I think I must comment on two matters. First, there is some doubt whether the text uses English or American spelling. One might expect the latter, given that the article is about an American film, but we have Anglicisms such as "labour", "Programmes" (though possibly in a job title this is prescribed) and "organisation". If, per contra, English spelling is intended, we have "installment", "center", "traveled" and "counseling", that need changing. In either case, "readded" could do with a hyphen to help the reader, and the phrase "each and every one of us", is usual, rather than "each and everyone of us". (That's in a quote, but it's a report of a speech, and I think you are liberty to render it in orthodox form.) "Denialism" was new to me (and the Oxford English Dictionary hasn't heard of it) but I see Wikipedia has an article on it, and so I suppose it must be allowed.
Secondly, it is a matter of interpretation of WP:OVERLINK, but to my eye there are too many links to ordinary words and phrases that need not be linked, such as "documentary film", "slavery", "social justice", "incest", "burned to death", "buried alive", "prostituted", "trafficking in drugs", "feature film", "film crew", "and sexually assaulted". – Tim riley talk 08:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I greatly appreciate your review of the article, Tim. I am Canadian and, because Canadian English matches British English in some ways and American English in others, that is probably why you are seeing elements of both in the article. I agree that an article about an American film should employ American English, so I have made the alterations accordingly. Please let me know if you spot any more non-American spellings. I have also gone through the article and removed all the wikilinks you mentioned, as well as a few others. The hyphen is now in "re-added" and the space is between "every one". Neelix (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good heavens! So sorry for my absent-minded, or perhaps beleaguered, English assumption that all non-BrEng variants are American. Remiss, and rather presumptuous, of me, and as far as I can see you are now wholly in AmEng. Very happy to support this moving and well-researched article. Meets all the FA criteria, in my opinion. – Tim riley talk 20:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article draws so heavily from a single paper that I think it would be an omission to promote this article without asking the author of that paper if she would like to review and comment upon this article. How would anyone feel about emailing Nancy Keefe Rhodes and seeing if she has anything to say? Has anyone already done this? Would it be helpful if I sent her an email asking for her to comment? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is either necessary or desirable: there are 24 citations to the Rhodes work out of a total of 57 citations. This proportion of references to a principal source seems to me well within the bounds of normal practice. For some subjects there may be only one or two main works of reference to go to. One casts one's net as widely as possible, and it looks to me (as a non-expert on the subject) that the net has duly been so cast. That is not to say of course that the comments of Ms Rhodes would be unwelcome: far from it, but as an individual contributor like any other, and emphatically not as some sort of censor or expert witness with ex cathedra authority. – Tim riley talk 11:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tim riley that Rhodes' comments (if she chooses to comment) should not be considered more valid than the published sources, including her own; Wikipedia bases the reliability its information on published sources, as opposed to projects like Citizendium that base their reliability on expert oversight. I have not heard of it being a practice on Wikipedia to contact authors of sources to verify the accuracy of what they wrote, or the accuracy of our interpretation of what they wrote. Nonetheless, everyone is welcome to contribute to FAC discussions, so if you choose to contact Rhodes and she is interested in participating in the discussion, I would be glad to engage with her comments. Neelix (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just wrote to Rhodes. Her comments or opinions are not more valuable than anyone else's as all contributors are equal here, but if anyone could be said to be an expert on this topic than she would be one and I think it would not harm anything to ask for her opinion. She may or may not comment; who knows. Experts rarely do, but for example in medicine where I usually am, when we get an article to good article or featured article review we try to find an expert from outside Wikipedia to give a review, or in the worst case to at least decline an invitation to review. It is not that external review is necessary, but just that it is desirable to get review from anyone knowledgeable on a topic and in this case Rhodes seems like an ideal candidate to ask. If she were a Wikipedian it would be really strange to not ping her on her talk page about this, so it seemed prudent to me to ask her to review it in this case.
Please do not delay the rest of the featured article review; if this person comments then they can do it on their own time. I just invited them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all - Nancy Keefe Rhodes here. I completely agree that you don't need me to sign off on this or do your fact-checking for you or approve of it. I do appreciate the courtesy of Lane's invitation to comment generally. Here are some observations which I make freely & with the understanding that you don't have to act on any of them:
1. You list the article as being written in "American English," but this seems to refer mainly to spelling. British/Commonwealth punctuation, however, remains throughout. I see there has been a careful decision for this article to use American English since it's about an American film, & I like that you attended to some rationale for that. But in the US, we put the period or the comma inside the quotation marks. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't realized that this was a dialectical difference. I have moved all of the relevant commas inside the corresponding quotation marks except three; the first two cases are titles and the third is a single-word quotations. I believe that the comma remains outside the quotation marks in these cases even in American English, but please correct me if I am wrong on this point. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the punctuation still remains inside the quotation marks in those instances too. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy Keefe Rhodes Wikipedia has codified in its own manual of style at WP:MOSLQ a rule to use "logical quotations". Neelix is following this rule, which is contrary to traditional usage in any system. It is influenced by computer coding and says never to put anything in quotation marks that does not come from the original source. I know it seems odd but this system is being pushed to all younger people in tech fields. So Neelix, Nancy is right that this seems wrong to people over age 28, and Nancy, Neelix is following Wikipedia's manual of style. There are literally a thousand pages of arguments in Wikipedia style archives about this and consensus is to do it Neelix's way. I suggest dropping this issue or at least just referring it to the Guild of Copy Editors at the end of this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind dropping it - we're surely not going to solve this issue for all time. Vast numbers of essays appear every fall, as English teachers & college professors contract a bad case of impending doom. I see that Wiki is widely misunderstood in the US as a chief culprit in degrading American students' grammar. I too have engaged in this & I won't in the future because I see that your process is very intentional & even where we disagree you do have rationales. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Last line of the first graph - "denialism" is not a word I have encountered anywhere before & to me it's actually not specific, descriptive or helpful in this sentence. It is like the phrase "cutaneous condition" further down (referencing the skin diseases that the begging boys get from eating garbage) - why not just say "skin disease," which is the phrase that Bilheimer's film uses? Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded the relevant sentences to avoid the obscure words "denialism" and "cutaneous". Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Second graph, in which there's a discussion of first version at the first public screening & a supposed "final cut" of the CNN broadcast. This is inaccurate. In fact there have been a number of re-edits since then, as Bilheimer has tinkered with the film several times to update it. There have been re-edits too since the first DVD release. I know this from having long-term correspondence with him & with his wife/producer Heidi, & because I've seen several versions of it (on a screener he sent me, in two separate public screenings here in the city where I live). The actual filming may have amounted to four years, but overall - with post-production & delays for fund-raising & additional shooting - "making the film" took closer to ten. I understand that this becomes confusing & space-consuming, but you might consider saying something a little beyond a first & final cut, something along the lines of "there have been several versions of the film due to updating & changing conditions." Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know of any published sources that contain this information? Information should not be included on Wikipedia articles unless a published source can be cited. I have removed the phrase "final cut" from the article so as to not make the claim that there is such a thing. Please let me know if you feel that this has solved the problem. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that solves the problem. To say that he has updated & re-cut the film a number of times is better than saying there are two versions. This is usually true in any film's life, but it's been a little more visible with this one because he has responded to conditions in the world & not just artistic decisions. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. More specifically re: that graph, the CNN & subsequent versions did remove direct reference to Suzanne Mubarak but NOT all references to the girls schools project that she sponsored while her husband remained in power in Egypt. I cover this in some detail in my piece because Bilheimer himself was conflicted about doing this. He felt that the regime change required deleting direct reference to her, but he felt also that she was sincere about this project & indeed that the schools themselves had largely been protected even after regime change because those communities knew the value of this project. So there IS footage in subsequent versions of the film of the schools & some of the students. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that much of the Egyptian mixed-sex school content was removed from the film, rather than saying that all of it was removed. What change would you like to see in this portion of the article? Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would state that material directly referencing Suzanne Mubarak was removed after the fall of the Mubarak regime so as to avoid having the coverage of the schools - which have by & large survived & still operate - appear dated. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the information that most of the schools continue to exist, although I don't believe that your article states that it was specifically the references to Suzanne Mubarak that were removed, so I can't make that claim in the article. Please correct me if you did include this information in your article. Neelix (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Third graph - the first of a couple places where you assert that Bilheimer says most trafficking victims are children. I think this is not so, at least in terms of what he says. The UN may say most are kids (& it looks like that's your reference) but Bilheimer pretty much always links "most" with "women & children." This raises a difficulty for me with the piece overall - that often there seems to be little distinction between what actually happens on-screen within the film he made & other supporting material you cite about the topic at hand. I would generally like to see more such distinctions, even brief linking phrases to provide clarity such as, "although Bilheimer says X, UN material on this instead suggests Y." Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The UNAFF source states that "Not My Life zeroes in on the fact that the vast majority of trafficking and slavery victims are indeed children"; the source claims that the film is making this statement rather than UNAFF. I don't think that it would be accurate to ascribe the statement to the UN, and there would be no reason to include the statement in the article if it were only a statement by the UN and not a statement made in (or about) the film. Are we interpreting the UNAFF source differently? Where else do you see similar issues in the article? Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I think the UNAFF source mistakes what he said, or makes a mistake in emphasis. That's my hunch, without tracking the whole thing down. Bilheimer's habit is to reference "women & children" as major victims. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know if you would like to pursue this or similar issues further. Neelix (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Under Themes, in the last two sentences of one graph you say that I expressed surprise that despite Bilheimer's background of social justice work with churches he doesn't proselytize. This is a tad misleading. First, I am not surprised that he doesn't, though I did indeed note that he doesn't. I'm not surprised because I have watched all of his films & he never proselytizes, so I would instead be surprised if he took that up suddenly with this film. I think he has consistently been careful not to & to allow the material to speak for itself in ways that are surely spiritual (if you want to see that) but which refrain from religious promotion. Since so many people doing anti-trafficking work are from faith communities, this takes work. Second, it might not be amiss to expand the quick summary that he has a social justice background in churches to a little more about - his first film (Cry of Reason) arose, for example, from the role his father played in dismantling South African apartheid through the intervention of the World Council of Churches (a fact he never mentions in that film at all, except in his one or two line dedication in the final credits). He & I talked at great length about this & about his conviction that he not use his special access to Beyers Naude & Desmond Tutu & lots of other people - people his father brought home when Bileheimer was still a boy - to seek any credit for his father in making the film. But others who are now starting to notice that Robert has made a body of work with his films might be interested in those roots. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the statement that you were surprised; I agree that the source does not warrant this assertion. If you know of published sources that discuss Bilheimer's religious/spiritual background/practices, I would be glad to add a brief summary in a footnote at that juncture. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. My published Stone Canoe article discusses these matters. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the footnote. Please let me know if it is to your liking. Neelix (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Live footage - okay, this section is a problem. You do frame the film as beginning & ending with the fishing boy Etsy but in between, the order of what happens in the film is really scrambled. I can tell from reading this that whoever wrote it read a lot ABOUT this film, but frankly I cannot tell that you actually watched it from start to finish. I don't mean to be harsh here, but because it's a documentary doesn't mean that the sequence of scenes doesn't matter. It matters very much & I can tell you that Robert spent long months & sweat blood getting things in the right, balanced order. I teach in a university film studies program & every year I tell my students, "Please understand you must watch the film itself. Do not rely on Wikipedia summaries because they are often inaccurate & incomplete. I will know if that is what you did instead of actually watch the film." The structure of a documentary is absolutely as important as the structure of a feature fiction film, & this article does not treat the film's structure as if it matters. You do have lots of facts about trafficking included, but not a clear account of the film's content. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have watched this film from beginning to end, and I purposely did not structure this article chronologically because doing so makes it too difficult to communicate the relevant encyclopedic information about the film's content. Because this article is about a documentary film (as opposed to an article about a dramatic film, which would contain a "Plot" section ordered chronologically), I organized the encyclopedic information about the film's content by subject, dividing it into two sections: "Live footage" and "Interviews". I think that it would be unnecessarily (and very) confusing to readers for these two sections to be combined and presented chronologically, or for either of them to be reordered chronologically. The purpose of this section is not to give the plot of the film but to succinctly explain what kinds of live footage and interviews are included, and this purpose would be defeated if the sentences were split apart and reordered to convey the order of the film's scenes. As is common with documentary films, the scenes in Not My Life jump around from interview to interview and back again many times over, and the same is true of the live footage. These sections would be disproportionately large compared to the rest of the article if they were restructured in this way. There are too many individual scenes of differing forms all mingled together to mention them all in sequence. If there is consensus that the chronology of the film is important, I could add a chronological "Plot" section in addition to the "Live footage" and "Interviews" sections as a kind of overview, but I would recommend against doing so as such is not typical of articles about documentary films. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this would be a rationale for the way you have structured this section & it's better to learn this than go around feeling you didn't actually watch it. But my assertion is that this is not the best way to write about film. Documentary filmmakers struggle mightily with the mistaken & widespread notion that the most important thing about their films is the list of facts one can pull out of them & that HOW they put those facts together is not so important. It is a huge issue to documentary filmmakers. I teach film. I write about film. I am around filmmakers & have talked with many of them about this issue in the past decade. What you have done is essentially to dismantle the film & lay out all its parts, much like one might if you took apart your car's engine & laid out all its parts on a white sheet neatly. This will tell us about what parts there are & how many & what they look like individually, but it will not help us understand how the engine works or allow us to see it in action. As you note elsewhere, Bilheimer goes light on the statistics - he prefers the occasional telling statistic to a constant deluge of numbers & he places those statistics very strategically throughout his narrative. Documentary filmmaking has had something of a crisis in this past decade as many filmmakers have decided that simply arguing from the facts & flooding the screen with numbers is a bankrupt method. Seattle filmmaker Sandy Cioffi said to me with regard to her documentary, "Sweet Crude," about US oil companies in the Niger Delta, "The World Bank already knows these numbers, Nancy. What number can I put on the screen that will stop the killing & pollution? It is stories that move people." So if you simply throw out the narrative, you miss the power of the film & you also miss his intention in how he makes the film. It is missing a very fundamental point about why he made a movie instead of simply publishing research. You've clearly been on his website & perhaps you recall that he writes about what he sees as the power of film to reach people. You can actually honor that in how you describe the film's narrative. Overall that may be more important than lists. How will people actually USE this piece on Wiki? Will this provide footnotes for papers or will it move people to find the film & watch it? Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know how to win me over, Nancy. Yes, I certainly want the article to be written in such a way that people will be likely to find and watch the film. Might you be able and willing to help me with this? Unfortunately, I don't own a copy of the film and neither does my local library; I moved to a different province this year and I watched the film last year by convincing my old public library to buy it. Would you be willing to tell me the order of the scenes? Neelix (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neelix, as if on cue, I've gotten an email from World Wide Documentaries that a new revised edition of "Not My Life" is now available on DVD. So at this point neither one of us knows the final order of scenes! I will email that notice to you so you have it as documentation. I've read the article as it now stands on the link & I think it's quite quite good. You've addressed a number of my concerns very well & have elaborated the context enough so that, even though there is not actually a description of the narrative itself, it seems less a problem, & it makes sense to me to simply say that WWD has just announced a new cut. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for letting me know about this! I have requested a copy of the new cut from Worldwide Documentaries, and have added a new paragraph at the end of the "Release" section of the article to explain the nature of the 2014 editing of the film. Neelix (talk) 04:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Here is one example of fuzzy content: Efrain Ortiz is NOT shown "getting sentenced." He's shown getting arrested & when that sequence concludes, there's a black screen with text reporting his sentence, but never actual footage of the courtroom. This is the kind of confusion that suggests someone read about the film but didn't watch it. However, later on there's a more detailed discussion of Efrain Ortiz & the rescuers, which to me almost seems written by someone else....? There are other examples of this. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumptions about the editors of this article are not correct; it might be more fruitful to stick to a discussion of article content. I have reworded the statement about Ortiz's sentencing according to your recommendation. I would be grateful if you would indicate the other examples to which you allude. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I regret that you have perhaps taken offense. Above you explained that you had indeed watched the film & why you chose a particular approach to describing what happens in the film. Certainly a legitimate approach although one I disagree with. But in this example - what's shown regarding Efrain Ortiz - it's simply that the writing isn't as clear as it might be & thereby misleads. One wants to avoid ever giving the impression that one hasn't watched the whole film. These little details that slip contribute to that. They are like editing mistakes in a movie - you notice on the screen that the prop people left that object on the set that isn't part of the film's "world" & stick out. You don't need me to give you a whole list - just go through & look for them & you'll see them. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I am now far more familiar with the sources than with the film itself. I wrote the article soon after watching the film, but I don't have access to the film anymore, and I don't now remember enough of the film's intricacies to be able to identify parts the published reviewers might have gotten wrong. As with #7, I'm at your mercy on this one. I'm unlikely to be able to get my hands on a copy of the film before this featured article candidacy expires, so I'm only going to be able to fix any inaccuracies you point out to me. I hope I'm not coming across as being difficult; I greatly appreciate your feedback and I want to address your concerns to the greatest extent that I'm able. Neelix (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. Angie & the Stormy Nights section about the US Midwest & truck stops. One of your reviewers asks a bunch of questions about when the FBI sting occurred, how old the girls were, how long ago, etc. All good questions. Again, careful watching of the actual film (plus through reading of my admittedly long-winded article) will answer them. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this content was removed from the article as the section was disproportionately focused on Angie. Please let me know if there is any specific information about her that you feel should be included in the article. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's your call if you wish not to focus so much on her, but abbreviating your account of her led your own reviewers to ask about what was missing. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. Toward the end there's a section where you write that Desmond Tutu was interviewed because Bilheimer felt that audiences might need "pastoral counseling" & the cite is another article about the film. I have not looked that cite up & perhaps this is a paraphrase of someone else's conclusion, but I have to say it's bizarre & providing "pastoral counseling" for movie audiences via a cameo of Bishop Tutu would be nothing that Robert Bilheimer would be up to. It's so out in left field & so inconsistent with how he works & thinks, that I am moved to ask how did the writer(s) arrive at such an idea? Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is taken from an interview with Bilheimer himself. Please feel free to listen to the interview and respond back if you feel that the article is not in line with the source. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a direct quote, that's one thing. If it's a paraphrase of what an interviewer thought Bilheimer meant, then it's just wacky. Just my observation. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. Finally, I have passed over the paraphrase of my own article's discussion of the notion of "slavery" as something historical, over-with, & different from modern "human trafficking." It's a bit fuzzy as it appears in this article & could be improved. What I say is that holding onto the idea of "slavery" as in the past allows us not act urgently on human trafficking, which is different only in its form - in how this commerce is conducted now. There are actually more enslaved people now than ever before - 27-29 million so I am interested in why we resist this comparison. But something else happens if we see "slavery" as only in the past - we can use the visual symbols of slavery in exoticized ways to titillate. So we have nearly-naked Christine Ricci in chains, for example. I'm not saying that in this film she IS a slave - only that the filmmaker is drawing on the power & resonance of certain visual tropes to add punch to his film, bondage that takes advantage of both racial & sexual stereotypes. If it's "over," then the category "slavery" can be used for other things - like squatting in an empty house.
Something interesting that HAS started to happen, however - again, I cover this though you'd have to read the whole thing & just from the pages you cite I can see you skipped vast expanses because they probably seemed not immediately important - is that people ARE beginning to equate modern trafficking with slavery. I discuss how a number of anti-trafficking groups now use that language on their websites, how Congressional hearings have included movie stars like Will & Jada Pinkett Smith testifying while wearing tee-shirts that say "End slavery," Hillary Clinton's choice to announce annual international trafficking stats on the anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation & explicitly pointing out the date, etc., etc. In my view, the growing recognition that trafficking = slavery is part of how come the quickening momentum to fight trafficking. And we can see this shift begin to happen during this years that Bilheimer was making & then releasing this film. I think it is part of the difference that his film makes. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way in particular that you feel the Wikipedia article should be changed to better reflect your article? I am unclear about what the issue is here that needs addressing. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the two paragraphs above summarize what I cover & discuss in much more detail in my article. Do you think that the sentence or two in the Wiki piece reflects that content & analysis? Upon reading the two graphs above (#11), did that clarify for you what I was trying to discuss & why it's important? A book I reference in my own piece is Kwame Anthony Appiah's "The Structure of Moral Revolutions," in which he discusses what broke the log-jam in certain pivotal social changes (the slave trade in UK, women's foot binding in China, & some others). Appiah says that it's actually NOT the amount of information we have - people in the UK already had all the numbers about the harm the transatlantic slave trade caused - that triggers change. It is deeper - how we see ourselves, in how we define the issue taht's a problem, whether we are the kind of people who do certain things with impunity. There is a shift that must occur before we will act that is not at all about the list of facts. What I noticed about Bilheimer's film is that he starts with a simple declaration that most people - when the film first screened - did not agree with. But over the last several years, this has begun to shift. Bilheimer has been a big part of re-defining what we think trafficking IS. And now that we know what it is, we will stop it. You know that Einstein quote, "The problems that we have to solve cannot be solved at the same level of thinking from which they were created"? It is not the whole inventory of facts that will change this - it's how we think about it. So that is why this framing of his film is important.Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded and added some information to this section in an attempt to better reflect the position you present in your article. Please let me know what you think of the changes. Neelix (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12. If this sounds like one long harangue, it's really not. There are some places the piece can be clarified considerably. I would worry actually less about the abundance of footnotes about the facts in the film & more about getting a clear & coherent account of the film itself. Distinguish more clearly between what happens on screen & secondary sources instead of lumping them all together. These are small flaws. Overall I'm really pleased that you're going to run something about "Not My Life." And I appreciate having a chance to comment.
Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you commenting! I hope you will come back to respond to my responses. On Wikipedia, we don't aim to present truth, but rather all of the published opinions on a subject proportionally. That's why this article is much more focused on being true to the sources indicated in our footnotes rather than true to our own interpretations of the film. In this way, editing Wikipedia is very different from writing student papers or scholarly journal articles. Again, I would be grateful for any further comments you have about this article. I hope we will be able to reach mutually satisfactory conclusions on all twelve of your points above. Thank you for being so thorough! Neelix (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, Neelix. But isn't the primary source of the article the film itself? By its nature film is a visual narrative form, which Bilheimer chose as the best medium for his statement. He didn't choose a legal brief in a lawsuit in the Hague, or a newspaper expose, or a UN position paper. He made a movie. Anyway, I've enjoyed this exchange & I appreciate having been able to have it. We actually don't have to agree on every single thing. For me there's a lot of freedom in knowing that I don't have to get you to do anything - I accept the terms that you don't need my approval & you guys will make your decisions, & I get to make comments & I won't be sore about the outcome. Many thanks! Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't take my comments prior to your commenting here to mean that I don't want your help in improving this article. I have greatly appreciated your willingness to review and continue discussing this article with us. I hope that you will consider helping me specifically with points 7 and 8 above; watching the film again anytime soon is beyond my means, but I do want the article to be of the highest possible quality. Thank you again for your help. Neelix (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fine piece. This has been hugely valuable for me too. Nancy Keefe Rhodes (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! Your insights have proved invaluable; I would not, for example, have known about the new 2014 cut of the film otherwise. If you have any remaining concerns regarding the article, I would be glad to hear about them. Neelix (talk) 04:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the only two remaining issues that have not been addressed are 1) the probable difference between the chronology of the "Live footage" section with the new 2014 version of the film, and 2) the clear distinction in that section between the information that is provided in the 2014 cut of the film and information that has been provided outside the film about the film's contents. I will not be able to address either of these issues until I receive a copy of the 2014 cut of the film, which I have requested from Worldwide Documentaries. I do not personally believe that either of these issues is significant enough to prevent the article from being featured, but I will understand if the community disagrees. I will attempt to retrieve a copy of the new version of the film as soon as possible, but I do not know how long it will take. Neelix (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Worldwide Documentaries is sending me two DVDs: one of the originally released version and one of the revised 2014 version. I intend to watch them when they arrive, and then make the relevant changes to the article, which I expect to be minor. Neelix (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I just received the DVDs from Worldwide Documentaries. I should manage to watch them and make the relevant changes to the article by the end of the weekend. Neelix (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have watched the new version of the film and restructured the "Contents" section so that its chronology matches that of the film. I have also indicated which statements were made about the film rather than in the film. I believe that all of the concerns that have been raised have now been addressed. Neelix (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
As a kind of outgrowth of my never-ending tinkering with galley (and early modern naval history), I came across the "archipelago frigates" of Fredrik Henrik af Chapman. This is one of the four hybrid types that he designed for the archipelago fleet in the late 18th century, and the most numerous. It was an interesting experiment that was along the lines of the galleass, xebec and oared "galley frigates" like the Charles Galley.
It's a narrow topic, and the article is fairly short. As far as I know, it should represent pretty much all the encyclopedic aspects of the ship type that is actually available in published sources.
Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
File:Swedish_galley_(1749).jpg: as I understand it, freedom of panorama laws in Sweden do not cover works exhibited indoors
File:Fredrik_Henrik_af_Chapman-Pasch_portrait.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
File:Chebec_genois_de_14_canons_en_1826.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fixed now (along with alt descriptions that I always forget to add before nominations).[26] The photo of the galley model is PD since the model is contemporary with the original galley design (noted in the image description). I don't recall if there was an exact date in the museum, but it was made in 18th century or possibly the early 19th century. These models were often made by (or for) the shipwright to be displayed for the monarch or navy officials to impress them into securíng the desired building contracts. Or merely as a demonstration.
What should I do about the dead link, though? It's still the original source. PeterIsotalo 06:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that. No, I tried that before, I believe. It's not archived. But in what way does it matter? Is it to establish the source of the file itself or the information about the painting? PeterIsotalo 12:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:: Anything else that needs fixing in the image department? PeterIsotalo 08:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Language
I was approached by Peter who asked if I could take a look at the article and maybe tweak the language. I didn't want to mess with the article itself so I copied it to my sandbox-2. I made my suggestions in stages and left comments in the edit summaries. Use some, none or all of it, or let me know if I should make the changes myself, I'm not familiar with FAC's. Best, w.carter-Talk 21:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the copyedit, W.carter (or just "carter"?). I implemented most, but not all of it, myself. The sandbox was a pretty good idea, btw.
You're free to merely suggest improvements at FACs (as you have already done), but you can also either oppose or support a candidate by applying the featured article criteria. If you wish to oppose, just specify in what area the article is lacking. The only requirement is that the criticism needs to be "actionable", ei a concrete lack of something rather than "language isn't good enough" or "not enough refs". Giving one or two examples is usually enough.
Support. Comments The article is in excellent shape. A couple of comments below.
I initially didn't understand the link to Tavastia in the first sentence -- I thought perhaps "hemmema" was a dialect word from that area. Perhaps the explanation can be made clearer. Also the English name for the link given is different in the body -- "Tavastland" instead of "Tavastia".
"Swedish prolific naval architect" is not the most natural adjective sequence. I'd suggest "Prolific Swedish naval architect", or "The prolific Swedish naval architect", or "Fredrik Henrik af Chapman, the prolific Swedish naval architect".
"the rower-soldiers; numerous of them succumbed to illness": how about "the rower-soldiers, many of whom succumbed to illness"?
"After Russia defeated Sweden": I assume this refers to the 1741-1743 war, and would suggest making this "After Russia defeated Sweden in 1743" to make this clearer to the reader.
"The galleys' firepower was inadequate, they were inefficient in terms of manpower, had poor protection for the crew, and were not particularly seaworthy." These should be parallel constructions, so I would either add "they" to the third and fourth reasons in the list, or rephrase. Part of the problem is that the subject of the first clause is "firepower", so there can be no parallelism to that.
I struck this but on rereading I'm unstriking; the firepower is still the subject of the first clause, so the rest of the clause doesn't work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent edit to this still didn't fix what I saw as a problem, so I've edited it myself -- I hope my version is acceptable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'The turuma and the hemmema vessel types best fit the description of "archipelago frigate"': suggest 'Of the new designs, the turuma and the hemmema vessel types best fit the description of "archipelago frigate"'
"They also had some of the heaviest broadsides, even compared with the high seas navy": I don't think this is quite right, though I think I know what you mean. The problem is that "heaviest" needs to be used in comparison with some group, but using "even" indicates an additional comparison, so it's not clear what group of guns these were the heaviest of.
"The later hemmemas were also considerably larger ...": I don't think you need "also" here.
"The Swedish-built hemmemas were all of the same specifications": how about "The Swedish hemmemas were all built to the same specifications"?
"Lost at First Battle of Svensksund 1789": suggest "Lost to Russia at First Battle of Svensksund 1789" for those of us who would otherwise have to click on the link.
"Fell into Russian hands at the surrender of Sveaborg in 1808 and the name rendered as Gel'gomar in Russian": I think this would be more natural as "Fell into Russian hands at the surrender of Sveaborg in 1808; the name was changed to Gel'gomar in Russian".
You give the length of Oden as 32 m. in the table but c. 33 m. in the article; which is it? (I changed "c.33" to "c. 33" per MOS, which expects a space after "c.".)
It took me a few seconds to understand that the dashes in the tables are essentially dittos; they indicate that the value is the same as in the cell above. I initially thought they meant that the value was not available. Given that there are only four types, would it be better to define the four types in a short table and then replace the size, oars, and armament columns with a "type" column? For the Russian ships even this wouldn't be necessary -- you could just specify the information at the top of the table.
I don't think you need any of the three links in the "See also" section. There's already a link to galley in the body of the article; the word "gunboat" appears in the article and could be linked there; and I don't think rowing is worth linking.
Thanks for striking. Sorry for not specifying the tinkering. The solution for condensing the tables seems very workable. I just need to figure out the exact formatting. PeterIsotalo 08:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, I think your remaining suggestions have been addressed. How do you feel about the solution with four tables instead of two, though? Workable?
I think it works. You could combine some duplicate rows (perhaps "St. Petersburg" and "1808") but that's a matter of taste, not a FAC issue. I struck a couple more but three look to be still outstanding (including a partially struck comment about Tavastia/Tavastland which you may have missed). I'll read through again since I see there have been some more edits. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments.
"have been described Tredea and Sozaev describe" -- looks like some editing debris there.
Of the twelve, you give the final information about all but one -- Hjalmar. If it's not known when she was broken up, can we say "last listed" or something similar, as you do for Styrbjörn?
Okay, Mike. I think that should the last of it.[27]
Forgot to comment the "See also"-links before, though. I don't see any harm in that particular type of repetition. They're all relevant, even the very general rowing, and I think it's better than not having them at all.
Well, MOS says 'As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes'; I would remove all three myself, but it's a matter of editorial judgement and not a FAC issue.
The only remaining issue was a sentence I was unhappy with; I didn't like the most recent version so I edited it myself. I hope that's OK; and assuming that it is I've switched to support above. This is a fine piece of work and was a pleasure to read. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for dealing with it. And for the reviewing overall.
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
I copyedited this at GAN but I see it's changed a lot, so I'll start over.
"term term": That's in the first sentence, so it might be a good idea to read through it again.
"The prolific and innovative Swedish naval architect Fredrik Henrik af Chapman (1721–1808), collaborated", "involvement in Prussia in the Seven Years' War (1757–62), reinforced": Don't put a comma between subject and verb.
"It could under either sails": ?
"they were inefficient in terms of manpower": I don't know what that means.
"7-8 pairs": seven or eight pairs
"The xebec was a good sailer, could be rowed if necessary and had more guns and greater stores than a galley; they were also cheaper to maintain.": "xebec/they" doesn't work.
"Oden. the first hemmema, completed in 1764.": ? - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's been some tinkering, and not just by me. So thanks for looking it over. How's this? PeterIsotalo 10:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Your link deals with all my points except the last one, and I haven't looked at last night's other edits. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As always, I'm very grateful for your own help. PeterIsotalo 19:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice work. Two comments:
I removed the "See also" section since galley and gunboat should be linked within the prose anyway, and "rowing" is a low-value link. If you consider it important, just link it in the prose. See MOS:SEEALSO.
Saunders is in the list of References but it doesn't seem to be cited anywhere.
Thanks for pointing that out. It belonged to a statement regarding the use of the name Hämeenmaa for ships of the modern Finnish Navy. It got lost in a reshuffle, apparently.[28]
I'm not going to restore the "see also"-links, but the "general rule" at MOS:SEEALSO strikes me as nonsense. There is no apparent reasoning behind it. It just assumes that the average reader reads through every single paragraph, takes note of every single link and would actually be bothered by a repetition in the "see also"-section. And pretty much that even occasional redundancy of linkage is bad for articles. It's a high-handed solution a non-existent problem.
I agree, on further reflection. I have restored the section (but please feel free to further alter it as you see fit). --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the mini-rant, but I've had to take similar positions in previous FACs. I think it might be appropriate if I started a discussion about this over at MOS:SEEALSO. Thanks for reconsidering.
"a turuma, a different type of "archipelago frigate". If a hemmema was a type of frigate, wouldn't it be better to use that word at the start rather than the general "warship".
I think you should say at the start that the hemmema was Russian as well as Swedish, rather than describing it as a weapon against the Russians until almost the end of the lead and then appearing to turn round and saying it was also Russian. (I take it that the vessel was only important to the Swedes but this can be explained.)
Great Northern War - it would be helpful to give the date.
"the minor involvement in Prussia" - sounds a bit odd referring to the navy - did they go up Prussian rivers?
"under the official name of arméns flotta ("fleet of the army") under the command of the Krigskollegium, the army department". Repetition of "under". I think "with" would be better in the first case.
" For two decades, the struggle for power between the Hats and the Caps, the dominant political factions at the time, and rivalries between army and navy brought about changes to the archipelago fleet..." This is repeated in the para below!
The third paragraph of 'Archipelago fleet' largely repeats points made in 'Background'
"The development of the Russian ships influenced the leadership of the archipelago fleet" - "influenced the leadership" sounds odd to me.
" within the skerries". This could do with a few words of explanation.
"Contemporary Swedish painting of the Battle of Svensksund where two of the larger hemmemas participated" I think "provided much of the firepower" would be better than "participated".
" highly manoeuvrable under oars, it was difficult to propel with sweeps" - this is my ignorance, but I do not understand this. What is the difference?
Why mention that 3 ships were under construction when Sveaborg was surrendered but not that two ships were captured?
In the table, why are 4 Sedish ships red links and the other two Swedish and the 6 Russian not?
A good article, but repetitious in parts. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon the slight dawdling. Non-wiki life calling. Much oblige for the comments. These two edits[29] should address your concerns. Concerning two of your questions:
"Archipelago frigate" is a very specific term that is used for all four of the specialized vessels designed by af Chapman. Having the term in quotes has its reasons since it's not a well-defined subcategory of "real" frigates. For example, two of Chapman's other designs, the udema and pojama are defintely not frigates and none of the sources I've used actually refer to any of these vessels as just "frigates". Turumas and hemmemas were quite similar to ocean-going frigates, but their tactical role was very different. And note the inspiration from xebecs, which are not referred to as frigates. I can't comment on any specific similarities in building techniques and whatnot. It's not something that has received any coverage in the sources either.
I simply unlinked the individual vessels. They were not added by me and I don't see that they could ever become meaningful separate articles. Oden, Styrbjörn and Birger Jarl might be worth the effort, but the rest are unlikely to ever go beyond what is already stated in this article.
The formatting of references has gone wrong in the first paragraph of 'Development'.
"The development of the Russian ships influenced the leadership of the archipelago fleet and Chapman." The still sounds a bit odd to me. How about something like "These innovations influenced Chapman and the Swedish naval command." Dudley Miles (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- No dedicated source review so just cast my eye over the refs and citations, and no major issues leapt out re. reliability or formatting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Keswick is a small town, known as the capital of the English Lake District. Its history goes back more than 700 years, and its literary associations are remarkable, from the Lake Poets to Hugh Walpole. This article, which has had the benefit of a thorough peer review, seems to the nominators to cover all relevant aspects of the town and to meet the FA criteria. We look forward to seeing and responding to the comments of other editors. Tim riley talk 17:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great; made some minor copyedits and formatting changes. What does this sentence mean? The registers of Crosthwaite Church stated that there were 238 interments in 1623, believed to have probably been "a tenth, or at most, one-twelfth, of the whole population of the parish at that time". A tenth is more than a twelfth. Almost ready to support. --John (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unquoted and redrawn for clarity. Thank you, John. Really helpful! Tim riley talk 20:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, starting with references and reference formatting. Some of the references don't seem to be formatted by template. That's fine, insofar as templated formatting isn't required, but it does seem to have let some errors creep in. In general, using the templates helps make sure your comma vs. period ducks are all in a row, and so forth; many of the references have problems with this, especially compared to the formatting style used in the bibliography (which is templated). I'm not going to call them out individually at this point, but assume that needs done (whether manually or by template) across the board. Personally, I'm not particularly fond of the way this article does reference bundling, but I understand it's trendy to limit Little Blue Number proliferation, and I won't hold this up on that regard. All reference numbers as of this revision:
Flom (reference 2) uses a nonstandard way of indicating volume and issue for a journal.
Ekwall and Mills (reference 3) is a mess, with the page number wedged inside the authors, the publication date appearing twice. Print sources do not require access dates (even when accessed online; the idea is that the print sources aren't going to change when we're not looking, but purely online sources might). Also, this is a book-format source (even if online) with an assigned ISBN that should be included (I won't quibble over whether you cite the print ISBN or the "eISBN" for the online edition); this is true for other Oxford University Press works cited in this manner, also.
I have always treated online references as sui generis, even if there is also a printed version, in all the articles I have steered through to FA, and propose to do so here. Duplicate date deleted. Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncertain about the reliability of Visit Cumbria (reference 19) for a significant historical claim. I'm also not sure that the source actually makes the claim cited: "In 1276 Edward I granted the town its market charter, and the Saturday market continues to this day." But I don't think that's an assurance that the operation has been continuous. Is there a better source for this?
Bott also says the same. The VisitCumbria source is referred to by the BBC, universities, national newpapers etc: see list here. For the continuity of the market see also: here and Michael Jackson's Exploring England (1979), p. 119. Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Derwent Pencils source (reference 39 in part) appears to be a dead link.
Removed. Covered by other ref. Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Visit Cumbra (reference 44) is less problematic than the earlier use, but I'm still dubious about reliability; that the source has a "Related Links" section with a bunch of links back to Wikipedia does not instill me with confidence.
You can't hold that against it: the BBC does the same from its website – see here – right hand column.
In reference 55, the author's middle name is misspelled (it's Rowan, not Rownan).
Why is City Population (reference 56, 79) a reliable source for demographics information? Basically, why don't you source this to whatever UK statistics report provides it directly?
Because I could not find it on the ONS site – possibly the most impenetrable and least user-friendly site I know. I'm sure it's there, and correctly quoted on the German site – I managed to find the 2001 figure on the ONS site here, and it reassuringly tallies with the German site – but the 1991 figure has eluded my detection chez ONS. Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 70 needs an access date.
I think we are supposed to add an access date only when the press article is not itself dated: "For web-only sources with no publication date, the "Retrieved" date (or the date you accessed the webpage) should be included." (Wikipedia:Citing sources). Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Elsewhere in the same guideline, it says that "Citations for World Wide Web pages typically include: ... the date you retrieved (or accessed) the webpage (required if the publication date is unknown)". I've always read this to mean that access dates are required if there is no publication date, but preferred for web sources regardless. I suppose I can see how an alternative reading of the guideline is possible. Personally, I'd prefer them, but I suppose I won't consider this point actionable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the Derwentwater site (reference 72), the commercial site for a hostel, a reliable source for claims about the local microclimate?
Is Holiday Weather (reference 73, in part) a high-quality reliable source for weather statistics?
It is used for one category not published on the Met Office's site. Where they otherwise overlap they concur, and so I think it reasonable to trust the site. Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In reference 78, Vision of Britain is hosting copies of the 1911 census, but is not their publisher or originator.
The originator was the General Register Office, which no longer exists. The original publisher was His Majesty's Stationery Office. I could obtain the published books at the British Library, but it seems reasonable to use the online version. Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. And actually, since this site presents the information in an updated format rather than just being an archive, citing it is reasonable, and I withdraw this objection entirely. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the Theatre on the Lake warrant inclusion; information on it is cited exclusively to its own website (reference 81, 82)? Actually, this appears to be true for most of the Landmarks section. Do any third-party sources discuss landmarks or other places of significance in Keswick?
Theatre by the Lake productions are regularly reviewed in The Guardian and elsewhere, but for factual info about the building it seems sensible to draw on the fons et origo. If you insist I could order copies of The Keswick Reminder via the British Library to get the same information from its pages. Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 92 and 93 are both Visit Cumbria links, both of which are formatted differently from previous Visit Cumbria links and from each other. Notwithstanding my concerns about the source in general, that's really an example of why templates help.
You may have a point, but with two editors contributing substantially, using a template would be no guarantee of uniformity. Now adjusted. Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of sounding pedantic, reference formatting uniformity is a feature article criterion (2c). Also, the "Ruskin Memorial" Visit Cumbria reference now has broken formatting. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what "Keswick Tourist Information, Moot Hall" (reference 99, in part) refers to.
It means I went in and asked the officials. This can be removed if you wish, but it is the only source I can find other than the one you object to at ref 99 that mentions the matter. We can ignore the Muslim angle if you insist. Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is muslimsinbritain.org a reliable source (reference 99)? It appears to include user-submitted content.
Uncertain. The personal interview at Moot Hall in particular does not meet the standards of WP:V. A second opinion on the reliability of muslimsinbritain.org might not hurt; if consensus is that it falls short of reliability, it may simply be that the Muslim minority in Keswick is too small to be the subject of third-party coverage (perhaps understandable, as there's not even actually a mosque). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is schoolswebsdirectory (reference 113) a reliable source?
Strangely, I could not find this information on the Council's own site, and the matter is surely not contentious. Will delete if you prefer. Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the Cumbria LEA does not have the most informative site ever. This document by the LEA lists the Keswick schools, but doesn't actually say anything about Keswick being part of the Cumbria LEA. Or really anything else. Or mention that Cumbria is an LEA. Hmm. I'll agree that this isn't contentious, but it amazes me that no one just says this anywhere official! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 120 needs an access date. So does 128, which is another good example of where templates would help...
As pointed out earlier, access dates are not required for dated press references.
...I didn't check the last column or so very thoroughly; similar concerns are likely through the end there.
As above.
In the Bibliography, you mix ISBN 10 and ISBN 13. ISBN 13 is preferred (ideally with correct hyphenation). Bookmark this tool and it will be your friend forever.
I didn't know the thirteen-digit format was preferred, and have always used the ten-digit version. Can you point me to the relevant WP guideline? Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am in your debt for that: I had no idea. (Do we know why the longer form is preferred?) I shall make sure to use it henceforth. I'll start with the sources for the present article. WorldCat, where I get many of the ISBNs, doesn't hyphenate them, but the tool you mention above seems to cope with that. The thought of ploughing through earlier FAs and smaller fry is too daunting to contemplate, but for new stuff I'll do as bid. Tim riley talk 19:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is my favorite tool, ever, for working with Wikipedia references. As for why this is, ISBN-10 was the original standard (well, technically, SBN-9 was the original standard), but some parts of ISBN-10's assignment space are getting full (in much the same way that there's a transition from IPv4 to IPv6). All valid ISBN-10s can be converted to ISBN-13s by adding the 978 prefix and recomputing the checksum (last) digit using the new formula (or letting that tool do it, especially since it knows the substantially more arcane hyphenation grouping process). Some 979-prefix ISBNs have now been issued; these cannot be converted to an ISBN-10. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am so old that I worked for Her Majesty's Stationery Office when we were introducing Standard Book Numbers – no International about it. ISBNs followed on hard behind. Thanks for the most interesting update. Tim riley talk 19:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes you give publisher locations, sometimes you don't. It's entirely optional, but you can't have it both ways.
Again, the upshot of having two main authors writing at the same time. I've added locations where they were omitted. Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly good. Although you do have one location cited as "Westport, UK" (the Olsen source), when the rest don't note that they're in the UK. I think it's safe to drop the UK there, as this is a British topic. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A typo by me, I fear. It should be US, not UK, and now is. Tim riley talk 19:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not extremely convinced of the independence and reliability of the Bott source, published by the local county library, but I honestly didn't take the time to evaluate the type of claims it sources. Still, if there are "better" replacements, that would probably be ideal.
Bott is regarded as the source. Our local library in Keswick has something like a dozen copies of hardback and paperback versions. He was a respected historian, commissioned by the County Council to write the official history. Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe your coauthor list in the Maxwell source is properly punctuated.
The problems of using templates, I'm afraid. The semicolon is inserted willy-nilly, where one would prefer a comma. Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the semicolon is correct (because it is a list with one or more elements that include internal commas). It's the rest of the author list that's a problem. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to semicolons instead of commas, and have adopted your preferred style. Tim riley talk 18:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Winter book is self-published. Why is it a reliable source?
As with the Bott book, the Keswick public library keeps several copies of the work. If the local authority thinks it worth making available it seems to me reasonable for us to use it. If I had looked at it at the British Library it would be another matter, of course, as the BL has to stock everything – good, bad and indifferent – but the council has to select its books (and pay for them!) Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An External Links section consisting of one bare link with a self-referential cautionary note, isn't really okay.
We inherited this: see the article talk page. I have found one incorrect statement in one of the site's many pages, but on the whole it's a good and interesting source, and worth drawing to people's attention, I feel. But if you insist, we can delete it. Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on the value of the site as an External Link. If it's a useful source of information, then, sure, it's fine as an External Link. The problems are that it needs at least a little context to explain to the reader what it is ... and that the self-referencing warning note isn't okay. Our articles should never point readers directly to parts of the project outside of articlespace (well, almost never: certain hatnotes are the exception, but that's not germane here). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have done no prose evaluation, however I am lean oppose. Reference formatting is easy enough to repair, but I'm concerned about the amount of material referenced to self-published sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no idea what you are referring to really, the Bott and Winter books would be classified as local research which is actually to be encouraged on articles such as this as you'll find more detail and information than you would in general reference books. The Bott book which is used earlier on is clearly a local reference book which would contain more details than most other sources and Tim evidently found it to be excellent source material on things like history in the area. As he stated, it is the definitive book on the town and written by a respected historian. If I was doing local research on a village in my area, the best sources on local history would very likely be those of local historical societies or council too. Some of the local council or local sites used in the article contain intricate details you'd be unlikely to find elsewhere and are legitimate sources. So long as there are a range of sources used it shouldn't matter. Some sources might be replaceable if there are concerns from several editors, but I just want to say that the sourcing in this article is typical of an article on a small town. You can't possibly compare them to large cities like London or Manchester which have a wealth of books written about them and published in various different places. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that there will be fewer, and more limited, sources for Keswick than for London, but as a FAC reviewer, it's my obligation to evaluate the quality of sources in regard to policy and to the "high-quality reliable sources" expectation of FA criterion 1c. To that end, I'll try to take some time to examine what claims are sourced to Bott; if that work was presented as an official history, it adds some weight to it, although I'm still not sure whether it should strictly be considered an independent source. I am less swayed regarding Winter. From Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources: "[S]elf-published media, such as books ... are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I don't see any evidence of that being the case here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your diligent review, Squeamish Ossifrage. My bad, as they say on Grand Theft Auto. I should have stressed that my near-support above was based largely on prose, which to me is pretty much ok. I did notice the prevalence of primary sourcing and I should have noted this above. Nothing that can't be fixed though, I think. --John (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Struck some concerns, and responded to a few others. I realize that this article has been a cooperative venture between two primary editors. But I really think the article's editors need to agree on a single, fixed reference style and apply it fully to both the references and the source bibliography. Compare the Ekwall and Mills source in references (which is a book-format source, albeit online) with the book sources in the bibliography. Field order is not the same, punctuation is not the same, structure is not the same. I realize that this sort of thing is not a popular part of article authorship nor of the FA process, and I'm sorry that my focus on referencing rather that prose can come across as pedantry, but 2c is nevertheless a criterion for promotion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked a fair bit into research for this myself. I barely found anything of real substance, at least what is available online in google books which document this town in great detail. I mostly found short articles from old encyclopedias and the basic amenities in travel guide sort of books. A lot of what I added was found from newspapers and local websites. I'm amazed that Tim found as much as he did so I think in this particular case it's actually a good thing that he did the local research and used such books to enhance the article. I'm pretty sure a lot of the sources won't be replaceable, particularly for the history. I think the article would be much weaker without them, in fact I'd argue that the content written using the Bott source is the cream of the article. On reference formatting, my particular preference is cite web for web sources and sfn for books with a bibliography which has always been acceptable to FA and GA reviewers. I followed the formatting Tim prefers, which I also believe has been perfectly acceptable to others in his past FAs.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can't work out what's getting Squeamish Ossifrage so agitated about the Ekwall and Mills ref. The Ekwall part relates to the sources section, and the Mills part refers to an online source in the form standard for the article, as explained above. SO, nobody is accusing you of pedantry: we all want to get these things right, but there is no single path of righteousness, as you have now conceded in re access dating dated press refs. Would you care to set out the wording for this particular reference that would satisfy you, consistent with the rationale adopted for the whole article? Dr B, most grateful for your silent adoption of my ref style: I had forgotten you are an SFN man, a condition to which I have never aspired because SFN baffles me! I ought to have thanked you before for your flexibility. Tim riley talk 18:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added lots of links to independent sites and replaced the Winter material with the same material from other sources. As Bott is regarded as definitive (see here) I have no intention of replacing any ref to his book. Indeed this article would be impossible without it. Tim riley talk 13:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I've looked at SO's comments and I'm confident those can be fixed without too much trouble.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Wehwalt, for your support here, and for your earlier help at PR. Tim riley talk 11:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I agree with Dr B's comments above, about the value of locally-produced sources in articles about small towns. It is highly likely that any supposedly "neutral" or outside source will have drawn on these local histories anyway. While Squeamish is right to raise issues of reliability, I think that Tim has responded fairly and adequately. I contributed to this article's peer review, and I believe that all the issues raised there have been handled adequately. It sounds a nice place. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, sir! (Seriously, have you have never been there? You really ought to repair that dereliction. Time it right and we can accommodate you and Mrs B at the Riley ancestral shack.)
Support. Although very surprised to see no mention of music, e.g. Keswick Music Society [32], West Cumbria Music Festival [33], the Mountain Festival [34] or even famous local venue [35]! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC) p.s. Steeleye Span have sold out for this Sunday night, in case you were wondering![reply]
Thank you, Martin. Yes - I need to add a bit about classical music. Give me 48 hours and please look in again. Tim riley talk 21:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a short para on music in Keswick. I could expand but I don't want an excessively long list of performers. I think the ones I have named give a snapshot: any thoughts? Tim riley talk 10:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
48? ... that's less than 12! Looks fine. Fully agree that only the top five or six performers deserve a mention. What about folk/popular music, and/or other regular festivals? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any institutionalised folk or popular music presentations, though there are always three or four buskers even in winter, and live music in some of the pubs if you're not careful. Last weekend we were beset by dozens (literally) of morris and folk dancing troops – very odd. I'll have a look round, but I don't think I'm likely to come up with much of use under the folk and popular heading. Tim riley talk 13:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Errant crafty morris men, one suspects. But don't worry, am not holding my breath while I strap these bells and ribbons to my gaiters (and firmly lodge my finger into one ear). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was one of the happy punters at PR, where my minor quibbles were dealt with. I appreciate the concerns over the sources, but agree with Brian that the local sources are probably the most reliable in this instance. - SchroCat (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, SchroCat. It's been fascinating to research in the local archives, and it's a lot different from the British Library modus operandi that you and I know so well! Dr B has kept me on the straight and narrow with much tact. Tim riley talk 21:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Lord! I got it from an old book but I'm blest if I can remember which. I'll rummage and find out, if I can. Tim riley talk 15:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, I cannot find where I got this from. Would it be better to replace it with a similar one such as that on p. 284 here? Tim riley talk 18:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it's all the same for the article, i'd replace the image. But i won't oppose over a small missing documentation detail. When the current image is needed for the article, just keep it - it's clearly PD even without further info. GermanJoe (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is, in truth, all the same, and I'm replacing. If you think the earlier image should be deleted from WP, are you able to arrange that? Tim riley talk 19:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take care of it, no problem. GermanJoe (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Pencil-making-Keswick-1850s.jpg - The year is off (caption 1865, description 1856, published 2 years earlier?). Suggest just "1850s" (could also be copied to Commons, it's old enough even for an unknown author).
Done.
Aside from those nitpicks all images are CC or PD, and have sufficient source and author info - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Joe, for the review. Tim riley talk 15:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I had my say at the PR and think the article now meets the FA standards. I have no quibbles about supporting. Well done Tim! —Cliftonian(talk) 06:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your support is gratefully received: thank you, Cliftonian. Tim riley talk 15:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Most happy at peer review, even happier here. A great first effort on a geographical article from Tim. Fully meets all FA criteria. Cassiantotalk 20:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Cassianto. I have had the benefit of Dr B's experience and tactful guidance, which have helped the article greatly. Tim riley talk 20:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a Public services section would eliminate that lone hospital sentence in the Education section. Otherwise very comprehensive. J3Mrs (talk) 08:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, though I'm unsure how changing the section heading from "Education and health" to "Public services" would make a difference to the fact that we have a two-sentence para on health at the end of the section. Tim riley talk 14:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be so vague, I meant something along the lines of this. J3Mrs (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Blofeld: (and anyone else who likes to comment), what think you? I'm not that keen on a multi-topic single para, and I think a two sentence para on health, as now, is probably the lesser of the two evils. Tim riley talk 15:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to provide it in GA reviews and I realise Public services on the how to write about settlements page is optional but I would have thought necessary for a comprehensive featured article. J3Mrs (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I tend to avoid titles like "public services" as I start thinking about smelly Shank toilets, rickety old buses driven by a guy named Bob with bad BO, musty old libraries and post offices full of screaming kids... hehe. I'd prefer to keep it as Education and health, or separate the sections if more can be found on healthcare. I'm not sure a lot of things which fall under public services are really encyclopedic anyway, you wouldn't want to document the price of bus fares or sports tickets or about when the toilets are cleaned etc. Some of the utilities mentioned in the Bolton article agreed look good though, I'd support a Utilities section with health and the others mentioned if it is going to really improve the article, just avoid the really trivial public services... I don't see it as essential for it to pass FAC though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well I'll do a bit of digging and add the significant material to a Utilities sub-section. We can tinker with the section heading{s} at our leisure, I think, post FAC, whichever way it goes. Tim riley talk 19:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In thinking about it if you were to briefly mention emergency services and police I think it would be encyclopedic, but obviously you wouldn't go into much detail. Content like local water and sanitation services would be appropriate too. I suspect if I do a bit of fishing around I could find some additional content on maintenance works in the area on top of what you add. If it does make it more comprehensive without venturing into the trivial daily services it should be OK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A first rate article. I had my say at PR and my concerns were met there. A couple of nit-picks.
"Other small-scale industries grew up, such as tannery and weaving; although the boom of the mid-16th century had finished, the town's economy did not slide into ruin, and the population remained generally constant at a little under 1,000." I would split this sentence into two.
I would leave out the absurd 1157 date for the school - before Keswick was first recorded! Dudley Miles (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Dudley. Both points are wholly ad rem, and shall be attended to forthwith. Your shrewd medievalist's eye is much appreciated. Tim riley talk 22:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that support, Jimknut; it is greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 18:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note Could the nominators please check for unnecessary duplicated links such "Grade II"?
Done, only one extra Grade II link I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about... William Seward, who in addition to being one of the most important secretaries of state, had a lengthy career as senator and governor of New York. Perhaps best remembered for "Seward's Folly"--the purchase of Alaska--he did as much as any one did to prevent foreign intervention in the American Civil War, that could have reversed the result.Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very well written biography of an important figure. It's well organized and based on a variety of serious academic sources. I have a few stylistic comments:
After "United States" is used once I like to use "U.S." to minimize redundancy. I wish our country had a less clunky name, of course.
"ill-treatment" I don't think this would be hyphenated?
"illegally-cast ballots" I don't like hyphenating after an adverb.
"In that era, the annual message by the New York governor was published and discussed to an extent that only a president's would be today." I like this.
It was a very different world.
"slavecatchers" Is this even a word? I've never heard it and Merriam-Webster doesn't include it.
"former president Adams" Something here should be capitalized, shouldn't it?
I am told not to capitalize "president" when it is not used directly as a title.
Sumner attack — is this due weight? It's a whole paragraph which gives little attention to Seward.
It's one of the major events that separated the sections, and Seward played a minor role in it. I'm inclined to give it full length. People still learn about the Sumner beating in school today, even if they know nothing else about Sumner.
"Lincoln faced three major opponents: A split in the Democratic Party" Every style guide says not to capitalize after a colon.
"On Election Day, Lincoln carried most Northern states, Breckenridge all Southern, Bell three border states, and Douglas Missouri—the only state Seward campaigned in that Lincoln did not win." This sentence is pretty messy and confusing.
"By then, he was known to be Secretary of State-designate" Nice to see my cameo in this article, but most style guides would put either a dash before it, or hyphens throughout.
"he would retire, as too old to bear the years of warfare in the Republican Party that would result" I don't think "warfare" is ever the right word for intrasectional squabbles.
Stevens didn't mince words. I don't think I should tone it down. Stevens defies being toned down.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"and the ultra [that is, Radical] Republicans" Nice.
"Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor" This is the first time in my life I've seem "x harbor" and it sounds weird to me. It's either a proper capitalized term or a neologism we'd like to avoid ("the harbor at Charleston"?).
"Lincoln drafted a reply indicating that whatever policy was adopted, "I must do it", though he never sent it, but met with Seward instead, and what passed between them is not known." This could live comfortably as two sentences.
"When in April 1861, the Confederacy announced that it would authorize privateers, Seward sent word to the American representatives abroad that the U.S. would become party to the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law of 1856, outlawing such vessels, but Britain required that, if the U.S. were to become a party, the rectification would no require action to be taken against Confederate vessels." This sentence is much too long, although I'm glad to see "U.S." at this point in the article.
"former slave Harriet Tubman" Is there a better false title for Tubman?
"William Seward rests" I thought this was a word to avoid but I'm too lazy to check...
I've used it many times, McKinley for example. For one thng, it saves the research on the grave/mausoleum thing "buried"--Wehwalt (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Seward remained controversial in death, dividing his contemporaries." This sentence seems wrong to me; by being controversial he's dividing someone, in death I'd assume by his contemporaries.
"One, "John Quincy Adams Seward" dreamed" Is there a comma missing here?
"The other, "Thurlow Weed Seward", cut backroom deals over cigars and a bottle, and was a pragmatist who often settled for half a loaf when the whole was not achievable." I like this paragraph.
I like the footnotes/citations division exactly as-is.
The "further reading" section seems like old Wikipedia design-by-committee style. I think you'll know what I mean. —Designate (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll work through these in the next few days. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've done all of these except where noted. Thanks again!--Wehwalt (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No image here can possibly have copyright concerns (Well, the medal theoretically could, but I checked, and it didn't). I haven't checked the image description pages, and it's possible one is misdocumented, but I'm quite certain of the copyright status of everything. Adam Cuerden(talk) 21:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That Robinson medal was shown by the coin dealer who's been kind enough to grant us a license, oh, a year ago, and I was just waiting for the chance to use it! Many thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great asset to the article, and breaks up the [largely necessary] monotony of the image types a bit, which is always good. Adam Cuerden(talk) 10:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing in full:
Because of a screwy Wikipedia bug, converting File:Seward_full_face.tif to JPEG will make it clearer and sharper. Wikipedia only sharpens JPEG thumbnails. It's a pain, I know. Also, I'd be inclined to leave it uncropped - that's his actual signature below the image in the original.
I said I'd do restorations of a couple images. That's still happening, I just needed a wikibreak for a little bit. I've started on the lead image; think it's already a lot nicer. Adam Cuerden(talk) 21:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Very, very minor things. I haven't reviewed text or sources, so I won't declare support, which is a positive statement, but I found no significant issues, and I see no reason why this shouldn't pass.Adam Cuerden(talk) 10:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I changed that tif to a jpg.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, my focus is on references and reference formatting:
The two letters from the University of Rochester special collection don't appear to have their reference entries formatted in any way. Once that's taken care of, if these have been assigned an OCLC number or any other identifier, that's especially helpful for historical documents that aren't readily available.
The two subdivisions of the bibliography aren't formatted the same way. "Books" is indented and appears without punctuation; "Other sources" is not indented and has a closing colon.
They use the cite templates, cite web for the books and cite web or journal for the others. There was a colon missing that I supplied
You mix ISBN 10 and ISBN 13. The ISBN converter makes that an exceedingly easy fix.
My reading of the manual of style suggests that the internal quotation marks in the title of the Valone source should be replaced with single quote marks (as it appears withing the double quote marked title).
I'm not fond of this sort of expansive Further Reading section; if these other sources have novel information not adequately presented in the article, then they should be referenced, and that information included. In general, I try to avoid just listing random other material on the topic unless there's something significant about the works. That there are nearly as many sources included in Further Reading as actually cited in the article raises a concern about whether this represents a comprehensive survey of the literature.
Axed it as Designate also flagged it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, the External Links. Things like the Project Gutenberg link, I find entirely appropriate. On the other hand, I'm not sure what's gained by linking to the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article on the topic, and so on.
Outside of referencing, I'm a bit concerned that the "Legacy" section is entirely silent on memorials or commemorations. While I realize there are quite a few, some brief overview in prose would be nice, instead of just the See Also link. That would also allow mention of things like the 1909 postage stamp commemorating Seward, issued in conjunction with the Alaska–Yukon–Pacific Exposition. Speaking of the See Also link, having a single article to cover both works by Seward and memorials to Seward does not strike me as conventional practice. I have not reviewed the prose at all, and remain neutral on promotion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will get to these. I intentionally excluded the various memorials because if you include them, there is no end to them and you open up a loophole that people drive road trains through. I speak from long experience here. Without begin the total bad guy, you cannot prevent such a section from growing indefinitely. If I have a KB to work with it, I'd rather spend it on something relevant, rather than there's a statue of him in some small town. They have a sub article. I'll work through the others later. I'll have a word with the stamp people, otherwise I will finish these up within a couple of days. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've done what you asked, or objected to it! Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk)
Support – Wehwalt has had to put up with occasional muttering from colleagues about excessive length, but this article is superbly concise yet comprehensive, and meets all FA criteria, in my view. Top-notch stuff! Tim riley talk 20:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you much for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As an assiduous peer-reviewer of this article I had my full say there. I have one caveat here: all my dictionaries, including OED, OD of E etc, give "ill-treatment" as a hyphenated word. Unless there is a specific AMEng usage minus the hyphen, it should be restored. Otherwise, this is another sterling contribution to WP's account of 19th century political American history. Brianboulton (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make that change Thanks for the review and support,--Wehwalt (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
On Election Day, Lincoln was elected, carrying most Northern states. Breckenridge took the Deep South, Bell three border states, and Douglas Missouri—the only state Seward campaigned in that Lincoln did not win. Lincoln was elected. Isn't this last sentence a bit redundant?
Mildly, but the reader should't have to do the math. Rephrased slightly.
Better, but no math is involved since you've already told the reader that he was elected and then break down the voting. Tell the reader that Lincoln was elected either at the beginning or the end; not both.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
<rant>I believe that the 10 vs. 13-digit ISBN issue is a "foolish consistency" in the Emersonian sense and that it's a waste of time, even with the tool, to standardize on one format alone. So long as the number works to locate the material referenced, I don't care what length is used and see no need to convert perfectly valid 10-digit numbers to the 13-digit format.</rant>
Especially since they are unique ...
CSS Alabama was not an ironclad, merely a ship with an iron hull, and was one of a number of steamships ordered or purchased for conversion into commerce raiders.
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2014 (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 article was promoted by Ian Rose 12:56, October 8, 2014 [37].
Nominator(s): Yunshui雲水 07:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Japanese temple bells. I've been working on it on and off for a while now, and have finally decided to see whether it can be pushed to FA status. I've not had anything much to do with FA before now, so would appreciate any and all assistance and suggestions. Yunshui雲水 07:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment (I hope to review this at a later date): Jigoku is a dab link. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was sort of intentional (since the only place we have an entry on Jigoku meaning "Hell" is at that dab page). However, since it's piped anyway, I don't see that it matters if I change the target to Diyu instead, which I've now done. Cheers, look forward to your review. Yunshui雲水 14:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll try and finish the cancer article first, then come here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review (if I don't mention an image, it's fine).
File:Hokoji-BellDetail-M1767.jpg - When was this bell created, and by who? When did the creator die? Japan only allows non-commercial FOP for "artistic works" (and these bells would certainly fit that definition) so we need to be sure of the copyright of the bell. File:RyoanJi-Kane.jpg this too.
File:Japanese Peace Bell cropped.PNG - 1952 installation... is there a copyright notice? There's no FOP in the US for non-architectural works, and assuming the structure is past the threshold of originality (arguable, perhaps, but to be safe let's assume it is) we'd need to know if there was a copyright notice before we could claim this is free to photograph. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know, it hadn't even occurred to me that pictures of bells would fall under the same provisos as pictures of sculptures - but you're absolutely right, of course. I've added a {{PD-Japan}} to the Chikanobu image, so that's dealt with. The Hokoji inscription dates to the seventeenth century (see the accompanying article text and source) so shouldn't be an issue; I've added a {{PD-art-3d}} tag to it.
The Ryoanji bell was (I believe) cast as part of the temple's 500th anniversary celebrations, which would have been in 1950, so I'm guessing that it isn't public domain (how it managed to get to be Picture of the Day without anyone picking up on this is beyond me). I'm uncertain what would constitute appropriate tagging in this case; I've considered {{Non-free 3D art}} but I'm not sure that the picture's use in this article meets the strictest interpretation of the fair use requirements. Suggestions on the best course of action would be welcomed!
I think I'll remove the Peace Bell image altogether; I've never been very happy with it. Yunshui雲水 07:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know who cast the Ryoanji bell? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a clue. I had a good look around this morning, but none of the Japanese bell-making companies I'm aware of seem to have taken the credit. Yunshui雲水 07:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you, there are a number of other images of bonsho available on Commons - I don't have time right now, but when I do I'll see what alternatives are available. The Ryoanji image is probably the best-quality one, but there are others that would suffice to illustrate the article. Yunshui雲水 07:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm must say, it's a pleasure to have a reviewer who knows their stuff with regards to image copyright... I've run several searches through the U.S. Copyright Office and am now fairly convinced that there is, as you say, no registered U.S. copyright. I'll therefore follow your suggestion above and add {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} and {{PD-Japan}} to the image file.
"Bonshō 梵鐘 (Buddhist bells)," why not Bonshō (Japanese: 梵鐘, Buddhist bells). The later one can be tsurigane (釣り鐘, hanging bells) and ōgane (大鐘, great bells), and so on. I mean, the shift from the standard text to the Latin script in Japanese unicode is pretty jarring. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
bosses - I'd link this
In modern times, they have become symbols of World Peace. - this could be read as the previously mentioned bells and not the bonsho in general
sixth century CE - lead has the earliest at "around 700 c.e." meaning at least a hundred years difference.
The bonshō is believed to have been derived from the bianzhong ... this bell would eventually develop into the bonshō. - These two clauses are slightly contradictory: the first offers a likelihood, whereas the second offers a certainty
1050 °C - Fahrenheit?
sutras - link recommended
World Peace Bell Association - worth a redlink?
The use of Japanese temple bells in such works has been seen as an attempt to replace the now-common sound of the orchestral tam-tam. - by whom?
A bronze bonshō was among the gifts presented to Commodore Matthew Perry upon his arrival in Japan. - can this be merged somewhere? I mean, single sentence paragraphs look rough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've now addressed all of the points above (in this edit, for ease of review). Yunshui雲水 07:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about the nihongo templates in the body of the text? Do you prefer having the different font, or...? Everything else looks good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I've now reformatted all of the nihongo templates with English translation text attached. Yunshui雲水 12:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, looking good now. I've cleaned up the image pages. If you'd just be so kind to add an information template to Hokoji, I'm ready to support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I had - but apparently not. This editing in fits and starts doesn't suit me... Done now. Yunshui雲水 17:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find it. I meant this. Anyways, without being a subject expert I can't comment on comprehensiveness, other than to say that I found this very informational. In terms of images and prose quality, I support this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha. Thanks very much for the support, but more importantly, for the critique. Yunshui雲水 10:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Accessdates aren't needed for GBooks links
FN3, 33: most refs don't include location
Be consistent in whether authors are presented first or last name first
FN8: title given doesn't match that in the link, can you verify?
Be consistent in whether book titles use sentence or title case
FN18: why the additional quote marks in the title?
FN25: URL can be truncated after page number
FN25: are we missing part of the journal title here?
FN36: what is the title and author of the specific article being cited from LIFE?
Thanks for the review. I think I've now addressed all of the above to the best of my ability. Yunshui雲水 10:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. Looks like FN32 still has a location attached, and for FN36 the publisher is not the author (it's okay to omit the parameter if no author is listed). Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thanks - both of the above now sorted. Yunshui雲水 08:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from EricCorbett
This is a very nice article, but there are just a few things I think need to be addressed before I'd feel comfortable supporting its promotion.
Lead
The image caption in the lead tells us that there's a shu-moku in the background, yet it's not until the Construction section that we're told what a shu-moku is. What about something like "... or a beam suspended on ropes, known as a shu-moku"?
Origin
"Bronze bells have been found in numerous archeological sites in Japan". The article seems generally to be using BR English spelling, so ought not this to be "archaeological"? Similarly, shouldn't "mold" be "mould"?
"One larger additional bell, which eventually developed into the bonshō, was used as a tuning device and a summons to listeners to attend the performance." The performance of what? A concert?
Sound
"... a difference of a single Hertz can require that the bell be recast from scratch." A difference between what and what?
Notable examples
"The bell of the Nishi-Arai Daishi Temple in Tokyo was scrapped as part of the Japanese war effort in 1943, but remained unused until the end of the war. The crew of the USS Pasadena found the bell and took it back to the USA as a war trophy, donating it to the city of Pasadena." This seems a bit muddled to me. In what sense was it unused until after the end of the war? And how could the crew of the USS Pasadena have taken it back to the USA when it had never been there in the first place?
@Eric Corbett: Immense thanks, Eric. I think this edit deals with your concerns, but do let me know if there's anything else. (And my somewhat humiliated gratitude for pulling me up on the mould/mold thing - eugh, what was I thinking!) Yunshui雲水 08:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
but can be adjusted to alter the tone of the end product: are there any examples of why this would be done, or how common it would be?
No examples, that I've found, but I've realised I wasn't really true to the source here; having re-read it, I've changed the wording to better reflect what the source actually says.
The casting of a large bell is a risky process: I'm not sure how appropriate the word "risky" is here—how dire are the consequences of a bell failing?
Probably not too risky nowadays (I don't imagine anyone commits seppuku over a failed bell), so I've changed the wording.
Often decorated with a [[Padma (attribute)|lotus]] motif.: that's an EGG—readers would assume it's pointing to the flower
Good point, changed the wording accordingly.
regarded as contributing to the bell's overall beauty: is this related to any of the principles of Japanese aesthetics that can be linked to?
Wabi-sabi is linked in the next sentence - since that's the specific aspect of Japanese aesthetics that the casting lines are supposed to relate to, I don't see the need to pipe it in here.
Finally comes the kūdierror: {{nihongo}}: Japanese or romaji text required (help) or decay: but "下る" reads kudaru (and di is simply un-Japanese). I can't find any of these three words in the ja.wp article, so I don't know what the correct word would be
I clearly misheard it on the radio programme used as the source - having listened again, it's okuri 送り. Updated to the correct term.
If you're getting these terms from an audio source, then where are you getting the kanji? The more Japanese I've learned, the less confident I've become that I could simply guess the kanji, especially for specialized terms. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, a good kanji dictionary and - I confess - a bit of educated guesswork. I'd prefer a native speaker to take a look, but I've asked in the past with no success. I'll take it out if you're unhappy with it, it just irks me to have one Japanese term without kanji when I've managed to locate translations for all the others.
Actually, I have now taken it out - after a bit more research, I'm now unsure whether it should be this kanji or not.
This would apply to the other two terms, too, though, wouldn't it? Maybe jsut ditch the kanji until you can be sure? One more thing: dao-on is almost certainly incorrect (I'm surprised I didn't notice it earlier). Searching around, it appears the kanji is pronounced both as tō-on and tō-ne, but I don't know which is correct in the context of bonshō. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[www.eikando.or.jp/Bonsho.pdf This] pdf puts them all in katakana, though I can't imagine why. Both that one and this use atari instead of dao-on or ŧo-on, and it looks like a number of other sources do too. I don't have the time right now (I'm on my way out the door), but I'll see if I can sort it out tomorrow. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you the information and source here and you can fit it into the article as you like. This is all fom page 32 of the source:
Source: {{cite journal |last1=Onozuka |first1=Masakazu |title=Tsurikane no O-hanashi |trans_title=About Tsurikane |journal=IHI Gihō = Journal of IHI Technologies |date=2012 |volume=52 |issue=3 |pages=32–35 |url=http://www.ihi.co.jp/var/ezwebin_site/storage/original/application/d19e6c36aac51b32247eb17d844a3506.pdf |format=PDF |language=Japanese |accessdate=1 October 2014}}
A bell's tonal quality is judged on three aspects. The atari is the sound at impact, and a pure, clear sound is favoured. The oshi is a higher-pitched, harmonically complex sorrowful rumbling that lasts up to ten seconds; the sound undulates in volume as higher- and lower-pitched waves come in and out of synch with each other. The following okuri is a single decaying tone that lasts for as long as a minute until reverberation ceases.
There were almost certainly kanji for these words, but the sources I've come across don't use them—I have no idea why, since they use kanji for everything else. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the same page I got this info as well (my summary, not a translation):
The earliest bonshō came from China via the Korean Peninsula. According to legend in the Nihon Shoki, Ōtomo no Satehiko brought three bronze bells back to Japan in 562 as spoils of war from Goguryeo (one of the ancient Three Kingdoms of Korea).
You hero, that's an awesome new source. I've added information about the possible Korean origin, and expanded the section on the bells' sound to incorporate the new information. Thanks so much! Yunshui雲水 07:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's been a misunderstanding—the bell is definitely of Chinese origin, but much Chinese culture (including the bell) arrived in Japan by way of Korea, rather than directly from China. That "much earlier Chinese or Korean origin" should still read only "much earlier Chinese origin", and "The bell design itself has even earlier Korean origins" should be dropped.
The rest of that PDF is mostly scientific analysis of the sounds of particular bells and thus far to narrow to have anything else worth including in the article, but if you scroll through it, you'll see a nice labelled diagram of a bell. It'd be nice if some graphics-oriented person were able to make a version of it to include in the article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is what happens when I edit decaffinated... I somehow misread your wording above as "... came to China ...", I think. Fixed; I should just have used your text in the first place. Yunshui雲水 11:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still not quite with The earliest bonshō came from China to Japan via the Korean Peninsula.: this is according to the Nihon Shoki; it may not be true. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better, though "According to legend" makes "may have" redundant.
I've been mulling this over, and I question whether the word baion should be used. In the Japanese sources I've been going through, the word seems to be used exclusively in its dictionary defintion as "overtones" or "harmonics", and doesn't appear to have a bell-specific nuance at all. I realize the English sources use the word, and we're supposed to follow the sources, but I find this an obnoxious tendency—using generic Japanese terms when there are perfectly good English translations of those terms. Think of mangaka—in Japanese, the word is used to refer to all of Osamu Tezuka, Hergé, and Charles Shulz. The word simply means "cartoonist" in a very broad sense, and it's only in its English misapporpriation that the term takes on nuances that aren't there in the original. The Japanese don't use baion to mean anything bell-specific, but the article seems to imply it is. If there's evidence that baion has entered the English lexicon as a bell-specific term, then I guess there's no choice but to use it, but in the absence of that evidence, I'd drop the term entirely: I'd change "There are also continuous harmonic overtones called baionerror: {{nihongo}}: Japanese or romaji text required (help) heard throughout" to "There are also continuous harmonic overtones heard throughout". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's hardly unreasonable. I concur with your logic; I've taken it out. Yunshui雲水 06:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are also continuous harmonic overtones called baionerror: {{nihongo}}: Japanese or romaji text required (help) heard throughout the tolling of the bell. A single bell can produce multiple tones simultaneously, creating a complex pitch profile.: these are referring to the same thing, aren't they? The "multiple tones" are the harmonic overtones, aren't they? They way it's worded, it appears to describe two separate phenomena.
Rephrased to connect the two sentences and make it clear that there's only one phenomenom under discussion.
twenty miles away on a clear day: no conversion? Earlier in the article, SI measurements were given before Imperial.
Missed that when I was filling in conversion templates (probably because it's in text). Now amended.
and a difference of a single Hertz can require that the bell be recast from scratch: is this different from the bells "failing" as described earlier?
I think the rephrase of the earlier sentence shoudl have clarified this now.
to call the monks to services: as opposed to "to service"?
Linked and rephrased.
which could carry for miles: or "great distances", for the Imperial-impaired?
Ooh, yes; I like that much better.
the 108 Buddhist sins: nothing good to link to here?
Not really, but it should be "temptations" rather than sins; there's a little bit on it in the 108 article, which I've linked to.
another bonshō, called an okurikane: this is okurikane and not okurigane? Sources giving the pronunciation seem scarce, but the latter seems more likely. This source uses the latter. Theseresults are not particularly helpful.
Again, misheard the radio programme (although in fairness, "ka" and "ga" are damn near interchangable in Japanese). Changes to "ka".
Well, the "interchangeability" is really only one way, but yeah, the meaning wouldn't change here. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
to be placed around the world as symbols of peace. Peace bells have been placed at a number of locations around the world.: seems redundant
It is rather. Tautological statement removed.
which was cast in 698 CE ... which was commissioned in 732 CE: Many of those "CE"s could be dropped, especially later in the article, as we know all the Japanese dates are in the Common Era.
Good point, once the Origin section established that the earliest bells date from the sixth century CE the rest of the dates can be supposed to be CE unless otherwise stated. Removed the extraneous ones.
The Hōkō-ji stuff could use a better explanation—who was Hideyoshi, what was Ieyasu's relation to him? Also, the way it's worded, it sounds like Hideyoshi had the bell cast while Ieyasu was Shōgun (!!!)
To be honest, I'd prefer to leave these as links - I don't want to overburden a small section of the article with excessive detail about stuff that's explained elsewhere. I therefore haven't made changes here. (And yes, Hideyori (not Hideyoshi!) did indeed have the bell cast during the early Tokugawa shogunate, so that bit's intentional.)
Arrgh!—I hate how all these old Japanese names are so similar—I can never keep all those Ashikagas or whatever straight. I still think this lacks sufficient context, though, and simply clicking through won't quickly give a satisfactory answer. I'm thinking something along the lines of—
In 1610 Toyotomi Hideyori sponsored the reconstruction of Hōkō-ji temple after it burned down, and commissioned a large bell as part of it. The bell's inscription drew the ire of Tokugawa Ieyasu, who had become shogun after wresting power from the Toyotomi clan after the death of Hideyori's father Hideyoshi. The kanji characters in the inscription "Kokka ankō" error: {{nihongo}}: Japanese or romaji text required (help) ("Peace and tranquility for the nation") separated the characters for Ieyasu's given name (error: {{nihongo}}: Japanese or romaji text required (help)) with the character for "peace" (error: {{nihongo}}: Japanese or romaji text required (help)). Ieyasu assumed this to imply that Hideyori believed peace would require the "dismemberment" of the Tokugawa, and used the dispute as a pretense to wage war on the Toyotomi clan, resulting in the Siege of Osaka and destruction of the Toyotomi.
This is 11 words longer than what's there now, which I don't think is overboard, and could probably be tightened somewhere if you still thought it too long. (I wouldn't fight for the change from "fall" to "destruction", but, seriously, they flattened the castle, beheaded an eight-year-old, forced Hideyori to commit seppuku, and disbanded the clan—I don't think the word's too strong). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you're going to do a thing, best not do it by halves... I like "destruction" better too. Having seen your version above, I realise that it doesn't need to be too wordy, so I've added an extra sentence about the death of Hidelyoshi and changed a few other bits in the paragraph to make it flow better. Yunshui雲水 07:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there not a photo out there that clearly shows that "battering ram" they ring the bell with? A video that clearly shows it would be nice, too—in the video that's in the article, you really can't see it. It looks almost as if the bell rang itself. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟
Trust me, I've looked and then some. I'm fairly confident in saying that the images and video in the article are the best that are available, at least for Wikipedia's use.
@Curly Turkey: Many thanks for such a thorough review, see this edit if you want to check exactly what I've done in response. Yunshui雲水 09:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few last nits:
a "homonym" is a word that is not only spelt the same but sounds the same as another, is it not? I think the correct word would by "homograph", but I'd avoid vocab like that if possible and just say that they were written with the same characters.
Since we know the year Hideyori commissioned the bell (1610) I think it would be best to mention it.
should be a multi-tonal rumble: "multi-tonal" sounds almost like it's a chord, rather than overtones; and I'm pretty sure the article says it is harmonically rich rather than should be—it's the going-in-and-out-of-synch of the overtones that causes the volume to alternately swell and decrease
lasts for about ten seconds: actually, the source says it lasts from "a few" ("数秒") to ten seconds; I think "up to ten seconds" would be better
Have you seen File:Miidera-no-bansho-M2075.jpg? It shows the battering-ram thingy a lot more clearly than the images currently in the article.
Crisco! How could you link to another people-make-a-bunch-of-articles thingy on the international network thingy—you slut! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that thing where we moved those things that happen all the time on the video thingy or the audio thingy was supported by that long law-like thingy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few last nits:
a "homonym" is a word that is not only spelt the same but sounds the same as another, is it not? I think the correct word would by "homograph", but I'd avoid vocab like that if possible and just say that they were written with the same characters.
Since we know the year Hideyori commissioned the bell (1610) I think it would be best to mention it.
should be a multi-tonal rumble: "multi-tonal" sounds almost like it's a chord, rather than overtones; and I'm pretty sure the article says it is harmonically rich rather than should be—it's the going-in-and-out-of-synch of the overtones that causes the volume to alternately swell and decrease
lasts for about ten seconds: actually, the source says it lasts from "a few" ("数秒") to ten seconds; I think "up to ten seconds" would be better
Have you seen File:Miidera-no-bansho-M2075.jpg? It shows the battering-ram thingy a lot more clearly than the images currently in the article.
All those changes to the text make sense to me and I've implemented them. I'm a little loathe to add the Miidera image based on the discussion with Crisco above; whilst the bell certainly looks old enough to be PD in Japan, I can't find any evidence of the actual date of it's casting. It's definitely not the Benkei bell (which would certainly be PD). Yunshui雲水 08:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that sucks about the image. Perhaps you could get someone to take something better (and PD) if you put in a request at WikiProject Japan. Anyways, I'm ready to support. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged - thanks for all your work on this. Yunshui雲水 10:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Everything now looks fine to me. EricCorbett 20:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article resurrects a series of long-forgotten hurricanes which collectively had their greatest impact on the northeastern United States. The 1850 season falls just outside the scope of the official hurricane database (1851–present), so the information in this article is more historical than it is scientific. After piecing together many nuggets of pertinent information, I've crafted what is to my knowledge the first true account of the "1850 Atlantic hurricane season". The article is important for a couple reasons. First, it serves as a reminder that cities like Baltimore and New York have long histories of hurricane impacts, so recent storms like Isabel and Sandy are not quite as incredible as one might believe. Also, some weather enthusiasts believe an expansion of the hurricane database might be in order, so there's a chance this article might prove useful to future hurricane researchers looking for sources. Since nobody on the planet remembers any of these storms (save perhaps a few tortoises), you might be interested to read the article and live vicariously through our ancestors. Thanks for taking a look! – Juliancolton | Talk 23:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – brief for the moment, as I'm a bit short of time. There are a couple of sentences in the lead you should look at:
"Although meteorological records are sparse and generally incomplete, three significant tropical cyclones affected the eastern United States, each causing some degree of damage." The sentence is unsatisfactory as it stands; it needs words such as "they indicate that" after "incomplete"
"However, it is impossible to confirm the origins of these events without modern reanalysis efforts." Does that mean it would be possible to confirm the origins of these events if someone used "modern reanalysis efforts", whatever these may be? If so, why has no one done so?
I will try to revisit later and take a more detailed look at this encouragingly concise article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a peek, and I look forward to additional suggestions for improvements. I've added "it is known that" to the first sentence you highlighted. After considering the reanalysis line for a while, I decided it was probably unnecessary and likely to prompt more questions than it answered... removed. –
The trouble with wording like "it is known" is that it positively invites someone to add [by whom?]. The wording I've suggested seems to meet the circumstances, and would avoid further comment. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
A few more, mainly minor nitpicks/suggestions:
"lost to a Smithsonian Institution fire" – wording niggles slightly: "in a..." seems more usual in this context.
I would delete the unnecessary words "additionally" and "highly"
"compromised" is an odd choice of word, meaning damaged or destroyed. "Downed" is used later on.
"multiple coaster vessels wrecked along the coast" → "were wrecked".
"far northern" – as a single adjective, possibly hyphenate?
"a hurricane was felt upwind" – I'm not familiar with hurricanespeak, but "felt" seems strange here. Also: suggest you delete "also" later in the same sentence.
"450 ft (150 yds) long and 60 ft (20 yds) high". The parentheses should give metric equivalents, not alternative imperial measures.
Everyday speech, e.g. "much damage", should not be in quotes.
What as the Osceola?
"precipitation" – why not "rain"?
The June/July "other storms" should receive a brief mention in the lead, since you have awarded them a short section in the main article
Well, that's where the Fragmented records... line comes in, but I can flesh that out a bit if necessary. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise the article is an excellent example of its genre. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: Just checking, did you have anything further to add to your review, Brian? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that Julian has fixed the above concerns (I haven't time to check but I assume he has) I have no problem with the prose. But with regard to sources, there is still a problem. Citation numbers have changed since I last looked at the article, and I find that what are now citations 5, 9, 22, 26 and 30 are all returning "page not found" messages. So something needs attending to there. Brianboulton (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review
Refs 3, 6, 19, 23, 27: the linked pages do not state the source
Completely willing to make necessary changes here, but I'm a bit confused to what you mean. The director of earth sciences (or some equally reputable title) at the university published accounts of the storm incorporating some info from David Ludlum's research, and he's listed as the |author= where appropriate. If the webpages aren't reliable enough, I could probably reduce the info to be in-line with Ludlum's book only. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 5: how does the data on the linked page support the statement cited to it?
Replaced it with a more accessible source to be safe. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 21 and 22 appear to be showing each other's source: 21 is NOAA, 22 is NWS
Couldn't quite see the issue but I tinkered with ref 22 to try to make it more clear. They're both broadly NWS and NOAA, but I try to list whichever parent agencies are more applicable in the citation data. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look of appropriate quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented most of your suggestions, and have just a few questions about some of your sourcing concerns. Replies above. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment, above, about "page not found" links. Brianboulton (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've checked the edits since I last copyedited this. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the edits! – Juliancolton | Talk 19:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support now.
The second lede paragraph should probably have a specific mention of the date, rather than the generic "about a month later"
What does "leaving many ships in distress" mean? That they actually needed help? Were they just in the storm's path? SOS? Damaged?
"freshwater floodwaters" - redundant
When you mention " $100,000" - you should add USD, since that's the first instance of the currency. Also, that sentence mentions "downstream", but it doesn't specify a river. Why not just mention this bit when you mention the Connecticut impact?
" and leaving several people injured" --> "and injuring several people"
"swelled 20 ft (6 m), amplified to 40 ft (12 m) above normal..." - so what does "swelled" mean here? If it rose 20 feet, then how could it be 40 feet above normal? Or did it become 20 feet wider than normal? Or was it 20 feet in some areas, but upwards of 40 feet in other areas?
The last one. It swelled 20 feet above normal, which was amplified to 40 feet above normal in tight chasms (I guess). Any suggestions on how to change that up? – Juliancolton | Talk 19:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This source indicates there was a hurricane in October, and has the July storm in the Lesser Antilles as the early history of the one that later hit the US. There's also another September hurricane in there.
Cool source, thanks! That definitely ties up some loose ends. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This ref has some more estimated intensities for the three main hurricanes, FWIW.
Hmm. I hadn't seen that link either, but I'm not sure it has anything terribly useful to add, either. The FL hurricane was "maybe" (their word, not mine) a Cat 3, which isn't very solid info. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All in all, it's a pretty good article. The prose is great, so consider these comments mostly minor before I'd be happy to support. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Getting to this stuff now. Sorry for the delay. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review -- only a map that looks satisfactorily licensed, US origin and PD. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
404 Not Found - As Brian as noted above, I get 404 errors for citations 5,9,22,26 and 30. Graham Colm (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
bah! They must have gone offline within the past few days. I'll figure something out this evening... – Juliancolton | Talk 12:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well that made it easy. Thanks :) – Juliancolton | Talk 04:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've verified links for all online sources as working so I think we can safely close this now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about two science fiction magazines that have perhaps the most confusing bibliographic history of any magazines I've ever come across. They each bore the name of the other magazine at different points in their lives. The editor, Robert W. Lowndes, at one point suggested that sorting out the bibliographic details was no more confusing than understanding alternate time tracks. Normally I would create a separate article for each of these titles, but in this case I think it makes no sense to try to separate them. Lowndes managed to do wonders with the shoestring budget he was given by the publisher; the magazines never led the field, but were well-liked by their readers. They finally ceased publication in 1960, victims of a magazine distributor who abruptly abandoned the publisher's entire magazine chain. One MoS note: I think the title of the article should, strictly speaking, be "Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories", but I don't think it's possible to create partially italic article titles of that format. If someone knows how to do it, please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
re title: you can use the DISPLAYTITLE template to modify italics for specific words which I have added. Feel free to revert if that's not what you're looking for. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. No comments, and little to do. Excellent article on a subject that can be hard to follow. - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recusing myself from coord duties to review as I have a FAC open myself and, besides, I've always enjoyed the history of the sf mags...
A very light copyedit from me, tribute no doubt to Mike's prose skills plus Dan getting in before me. ;-)
I think the justification for doing a two-in-one article is valid, especially given the titles were even interchangeable!
Structure and referencing seen fine to me.
Happy to defer to Nikki on the source formatting, and reliability isn't in question.
I might let one of the regular image reviewers check media licensing, so will offer provisional support in the meantime. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure Mike will love this: do we want to break out the reprints paragraphs into their own section?
We can, but I'm not sure it's necessary -- the section is not so much complex as it is simply a grab-bag of bibliographical information. I don't think there's much to be gained from a split unless you think the section is sufficiently long that the reader needs a divider there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should what is now footnote 39 ("See the individual issues. For convenience, an online index is available at "Future/Future Combined with Science Fiction - Issue Grid". Al von Ruff. Retrieved 19 July 2014.") be an explanatory note instead?
I can make the change, but let me explain why it's the way it is now. The issues are reliable sources; the ISFDB is not, by Wikipedia standards, at least. However, practically speaking, for things like this, it is very reliable, and it's a real convenience to the reader. I mention it so that a reader can get access to it, but I can't treat it as an RS. I thought of this more as a pair of resources, one RS, one not, rather than an editorial comment, so I made it a footnote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at some other FA/GAs with similar notes and see what the common practice is. Protonk (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about this a bit more, I think it should be a note. If the ISFDB is not an RS but we as editors think it is useful, then a pointer to it in an explanatory note is almost precisely what we want. We're not so much referencing the claims (Ashley & Thompson and Ashley do that for us, respectively). We're extending an offer to peruse a resource we find handy. Protonk (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It was used twice, and I don't know if it's possible to do a "reuse citation" with this format, so I just made the second one a footnote, which I think is appropriate anyway because there's no need to repeat the explanatory part of the citation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can mix groups and names. I've done just that and they now point to the same note. Protonk (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should redlink Louis Silberkleit (He's also the co-founder of the Archie comics, so he'll have an article at some point)
nvm, appears to be done. I'm going to have a talk with the mobile team about how articles are presented on mobile, as I'm not happy with the differences. Protonk (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've occasionally seen similar problems. FYI, the Futurians referred to Silberkleit as "Louis the Lug", as far as I can tell because he had a very strong Brooklyn accent. I look forward to including that in the article on him when we get one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Publication history tables should be updated to use the correct class for colors (see this edit on Comet). Otherwise they will fail to render properly to mobile readers. Protonk (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'm curious: what's the problem with the other syntax? Is that a bug in mobile or a nonstandard syntax? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Talking to some editors on IRC I discovered the old style is deprecated. Why it renders on desktop and not mobile is probably a very good question but eventually we should transition away from it (even if it didn't fail to render on mobile). Protonk (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink the first use of "digest" to Digest size if it isn't already.
"The magazines both lasted, on very slim budgets..." Do we mention the "slim budgets" in the body of the article? Ok, I see it now at the end of Contents and Reception. That's a bit narrower of a claim than we make in the lede but it's probably fine. Maybe something like, "budgets dwindled near the end of the decade"? As is, the sentence is a bit awkward, regardless of how well/poorly it summarises the content.
Should we devote some space in the lede to talk about the dizzying array of name changes that the magazines underwent? We talk about some of them, but I don't know if we want to mention the rest.
I can't think of a good place to do this -- it's complex enough that saying more than "various" gets quickly to two full sentences, and though it's an interesting oddity about the magazines I don't think it's a major enough fact to require being in the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I've re-read the lede and I agree. Protonk (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In October 1940, Hornig, who was a pacifist, received his military call-up. He decided to move to California and register as a conscientious objector" The note about pacifism is perhaps better placed in the second sentence. Also I seem to remember (though I can't find it now) that Hornig worked as a forester and our article on him says he was sent to Oregon. I'm not saying that specific bit of trivia belongs here but we do mention he went to CA and I'm seeing other things elsewhere
That section in the Hornig article is unreferenced; I do have Davin's Pioneers of Wonder, which has an interview with Hornig, but I don't think much more about him is needed. Agree about the sentence structure and have made that change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I'll strike this. If I find a source that's worth using which mentions something on his wartime activities worth mentioning vis a vis Future I'll bring it up on the article talk page. Protonk (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The June 1943 issue was the last for some years: Silberkleit..." Why is this a colon? I'm a grammarian's worst enemy, so that question could come from my ignorance.
I'm no grammarian either but this gives what I think is a good explanation of why I use colons in that situation: for explanations preceded by clauses that can stand by themselves (like this sentence). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...some reference books do index the magazine under "O"." maybe just "index" rather than "do index"?
Gotta love the Lowndes blockquote. Don't let anyone tell you to remove it. :)
:o)
"...the stories sent to Hornig had usually already been rejected by the better-paying markets..." do we mean markets, as in the stories went to other genres, formats or countries? Or do we mean magazines?
I meant magazines; this is a common usage in the sources. It's not quite right to use "magazines" because, for example, you actually sent stories to the editor, who might edit multiple magazines, as both Lowndes and Hornig did. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note on the below section: These are all suggestions. They are (near as I can tell) not in the article right now, but peruse them at your discretion and determine if they're helpful or not.
Hugo Gernsback and the Century of Science Fiction by Gary Westfall (2007) ISBN0786430796
p. 10 talks about Hornig (probably) writing an unsigned editorial in Future (July 42) about Gernsback as the father of pulp sf
pp. 42-43 talks about this in more detail.
I can only see page 10, but the context is a rebuttal of a particular view of Gernsback, and the editorial in Science Fiction is significant in that context. I think this would be useful in the article on Gernsback, but I don't think it's relevant here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only relevance I can see (and this is totally up to you, I have no strong opinions) is including it in a note about non-fiction elements in the mags. e.g. "the magazine also ran editorials, etc." should that be something we want to include. Protonk (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so -- I typically mention non-fiction elements when a secondary source mentions them as noteworthy in some way. A reference to them in the context of discussing something else doesn't seem enough to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not worth it in this case. Protonk (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
C.M. Kornbluth: The Life and Works of a Science Fiction Visionary by Mark Rich (2009) ISBN0786457112
Quotes Michael Rosenbaum on Hornig's resignation (p. 75)
Actually, that quote represents a different story on the resignation that we have in the article
I can't see the whole page, but it looks like a quote from a fanzine. If that's so we should go with the reliable sources rather than include it. I've ordered a copy and will take a look when it gets here, just in case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems worth getting (the book, not the cite) as it has come up multiple times across these magazine reviews. :) Protonk (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Canada's Pioneer Science-Fantasy Magazine (La première revue canadienne de science fantaisie)" Moskowitz, Sam in Science Fiction Studies 13 (1) (1990)
Indicates that a canadian edition of Science Fiction was published, with a hoo-ah style remark of Canadian patriotism despite only the actual printing and distributing being done in Canada (p. 89).
This is a good catch; thanks. Ashley and Thompson don't mention a Canadian reprint in the article in Tymn & Ashley, so I was surprised to see this. Some checking revealed that it's because they list it as a separate magazine under the heading "Science Fiction (Canadian)". It was apparently just a reprint vehicle for Silberkleit's magazines, and reprinted from all three of his then-current titles, so it's not strictly a reprint edition of Science Fiction, but for our purposes it belongs in this article, so I added a paragraph on it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit persnickity, but do you mind adding the Moskowitz ref for that claim as well? Protonk (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strange Highways: Reading Science Fantasy, 1950-1967 by John Boston and Damien Broderick (2013) ISBN1434447464
pp. 295-296 has some things (strong things!) to say about the displacement of Judith Merril's "Homecalling" from the cover of the November 1956 issue of Future Science Fiction
p. 101 talks about a Bertram Chandler story appearing in September 1957 Science Fiction Stories and a sequel in the last issue (May 1960)
I can't see this online; I have it but it's in a box somewhere. If I recall correctly, the book is just an account of Broderick's reactions as he read through all issues of Science Fantasy. Does it look like the sort of material that should be included? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll screencap the Merrill stuff. I don't think either demands to be in the article, but the former may be worth a short note. Protonk (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not germane to this article but according to p. 217 of Mike Ashely's The Gernsback Days: A Study of the Evolution of Modern Science Fiction from 1911 to 1936 there was another magazine called Science Fiction published in 1932-1933 by Jerome Seigel.
That was a fanzine; see here. As you say, not strictly relevant here. Generally I don't think fanzines need to be mentioned unless a secondary source makes a point of doing so, though this is an unusually well-known one because of Siegel's subsequent history. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the article, made a few very minor tweaks, and find the article to be a good one. It looks to be a great collaborative effort, too! Great job!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All images are PD (in the US) and have sufficient source and author info - OK.
A quick search for copyright records did not reveal any matches, as claimed ("no notice" / "no renewal") - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I hate to nag; I figure someone will get to it eventually, and I don't mind waiting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): ɱ(talk) 20:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is my second nomination of this article. The first one was closed solely because not enough reviewers contributed. For evidence of that, please visit /archive1. Please comment and review, I could use as many people, as many reviews, and as much assistance as I can get.
Briarcliff Manor is a small village in the New York suburbs. It has plenty of interesting history and quite a few notable residents. The village also has a number of parks and historic buildings.
After I saw this article a few months back, I realized that it needed quite a bit of work. I created a user sandbox page and wrote a draft, which was peer reviewed by three users. I later published the article on the mainspace and submitted it as a Good Article candidate, which it passed. I'd hope you can help make the article even better - I believe there's always room for improvement.--ɱ(talk) 20:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per comments below. URDNEXT (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What bugs me abound the lead and infobox, is the lack of refs throughout them. When you wanna make it to FA, AFAIK, you need reliable sources to back every statement you make, specially in the lead.
According to a number or rules including WP:WHYCITE, information shouldn't be cited in the lead and infobox, especially if it's repeated in the sections below with reliable sources, which it is in every case here.--ɱ(talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's saying that Briarcliff is a suburban village in Westchester County, NY and is less than 30 miles north of NYC. Can you be more specific what your issue is with the sentence?--ɱ(talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It says: "Briarcliff Manor's original settlement was known as Whitson's Corners". I don't get the original settlement thing? What is it? I think you should rephrase that, ɱURDNEXT (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I reword that as "Briarcliff Manor's settlement was originally known as...", that would be okay?--ɱ(talk) 01:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the word settlement is a bit, I don't know... Weird. I think if you used an alternative it would be easier to understand. URDNEXT (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the area may have had other names when it was native American land or when there were a few farms in the area, but the first proper settlement was named Whitson's Corners. I think it's alright.--ɱ(talk) 01:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The neighboring community of Scarborough was known as Weskora until renamed in 1864." How about Weskora "until" it was renamed in 1864?
So, you want to add in "it was"? That's fine with me, although it's unnecessary wording.--ɱ(talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It makes the prose flow better. URDNEXT (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Miniapolis suggested it too, and it's minor.--ɱ(talk) 01:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Soon afterward, that sign was thrown into the Hudson River and replaced with the original Scarborough sign" Is there a reason for this to happen? I think it would be a good thing to cover.
Yeah, it's generally attributed to the fact that Scarborough residents generally wanted to feel less like they were like just another part of Briarcliff; they like to be identified as residents of Scarborough.--ɱ(talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Put this in the article and my issue is solved. URDNEXT (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but it's not very factual and not very well supported by reliable sources. I'll see what I can put in.--ɱ(talk) 01:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done.--ɱ(talk) 14:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"after the family home in Ireland" You mean "his" family home?
That should make it more clear; done.--ɱ(talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
{{He bought his first 236 acres (96 ha) in 1890,[1] and rapidly added to his property}} I can't understand this sentence. If these were his first acres, how did he already have property there?
He didn't already have property there, the 236 acres were his first. Perhaps the wording suggests that he bought land before that? It's unlikely I can make it any clearer.--ɱ(talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a wording conflict in this sentence. You said something then you contradicted it. You started saying he bought his first acres, which added to his property. Try this:
"He purchased his first 236 acres (96 ha) in 1890, and then quickly expanded his property..." URDNEXT (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The part about rapidly adding relates to the 40 parcels, not the 236 acres, but I see how you're confused. Should I reword it to be more clear?--ɱ(talk) 01:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll try something.--ɱ(talk) 01:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks.--ɱ(talk) 14:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will be back for more! URDNEXT (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to your comments so far. Thanks for helping out.--ɱ(talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was my pleasure, ɱ! Now do me a favor, and take this to FA no matter what. I'm here to help! URDNEXT (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think "The Briarcliff Manor Police Department and the volunteer Briarcliff Manor Fire Department are stationed at the Briarcliff Manor Village Hall" is not the best introduction to Infrastructure. Perhabs you could start the section with, "Briacliff Manor has a large infrastructure with several..." Giving this introduction sets up the scene for the readers as the current one kinda comes out of nowhere.
I don't know if every paragraph needs some sort of guidebook-type introduction. It really wouldn't add anything here, doesn't seem very professional, and this is all especially true for such a short section. Also, Briarcliff Manor doesn't have a large infrastructure, because it's a small village.--ɱ(talk) 17:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"thirty vehicles and employs twenty-nine men" Again, nothing totally wrong with this, just that the use of "men" could be replaced with "people" or "workers".
done.--ɱ(talk) 17:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"According to the National Bridge Inventory, Briarcliff Manor has 15 bridges, with estimated daily traffic at 204,000 vehicles" You should change "at" to "of".
Well, then I'd have to word it as "15 bridges, which have an estimated daily traffic volume of 204,000 vehicles", which is much more lengthy. The current text conveys the same information more concisely.--ɱ(talk) 17:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"existing road is Washburn Road, on which is the 1767 Century Homestead" Didn't understand this at all.
Miniapolis reworded a lot for conciseness, and perhaps she made this one a bit too concise. The oldest road in the village is Washburn Rd., and on it is the house named Century Homestead, which I talk about earlier in the article's text. I just changed the wording a bit, is that good?--ɱ(talk) 17:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Also, just a reminder of the Sleeping Dogs thing, in case you forgot. I'll be making more comments here as I read the article more, though I'm afraid the article is already in such good shape that any criticism would be nitpicking. @ⱮURDNEXT (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Likely won't be editing at all today, gotta restrict myself in order to actually get real-life things done...--ɱ(talk) 17:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ I hope that didn't come off like blackmail. I meant to say that I'll be making comments as I find errors and things that could be improved in the article, not that I'll only make comments if you help me. Just saying this in case my previous comment came off wrong. URDNEXT (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know you well enough by now to know that. You've always been very helpful and friendly.--ɱ(talk) 18:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ Thanks! I'm glad I'm able to say the same about you. :) URDNEXT (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second paragraph of historic (notable residents) is WAY too long. Maybe you should divide it into two paragraphs.
done.--ɱ(talk) 17:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think, @Ɱ? URDNEXT (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but there's nothing I feel comfortable with giving its own article. Do you have any thoughts?--ɱ(talk) 23:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You might move some content into Briarcliff Manor-related articles, since this article (an overview) is quite long. Miniapolis 23:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've already done that with the history section, although I don't think any other sections are long enough or would be independently notable enough to stand on their own. But please, be bold and try something, unless you'd like to suggest something.--ɱ(talk) 23:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that this is your nomination; my job here is to review the article and suggest improvements ("Length" is FA criterion #4). Miniapolis 00:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the list, but my job is to check compliance with policy, applicable guidelines and the MOS. "Longer" doesn't equal "better". Miniapolis 00:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I know, although I don't easily have a solution to this problem. Can you suggest something and I'll try to work from there? As well, criterion 4 is sufficiently vague to allow articles like Barack Obama to reach FA. It shouldn't restrict Briarcliff Manor from reaching it. On the other hand, I'd like to make the article shorter.--ɱ(talk) 01:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing to note is that according to User:The ed17/Featured articles by prose size, this article would be the 206th FA by prose size if passed. That makes it much smaller than many FAs that have already passed.--ɱ(talk) 11:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead, I think "less than 30 miles (48 km) north of New York City" is too vague; exact mileage (with conversion to km) is better.
Well, for a village that's 6.7 sq. mi., I'm not sure how you can be more precise than <30 mi.--ɱ(talk) 23:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Geographically" is implied by "shared" (no comma needed before). " ... ; it is served" is less choppy as ", and is served" (much as I love semicolons to tie short sentences :-)).
I think it is good to clarify 'geographically', especially when using a term like 'shared' that often conveys a more literal sense. I'll replace the semicolon there.--ɱ(talk) 23:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Names": "John H. Whitson's house the Crossways" needs commas after "house" and "Crossways". " ... until [it was] renamed ..." needs fixing.
Upon further reflection, I agree with the closer of the first archive that this article needs a formal peer review; IMO, it does not meet FA criteria 1d (neutrality) and 4 (length appropriate to the topic). Although the nominator and I seem to disagree on whether the article is too long, a related issue is its vaguely promotional tone (partly due, perhaps, to the large number of sources published—or commissioned—by the village). A source review is also needed. There is a numbing amount of detail in several sections, particularly "Neighborhoods", "Parks and recreation" and "Notable people", and my comments were becoming more appropriate for a PR than for an FAC (which is less about article improvement than about evaluating whether an article meets the FACR). Miniapolis 16:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Miniapolis, for such a long article, I'd assume that there would be minor problems that we'd have to dig to find. I have already had a number of people review it and OK it. A peer review wouldn't give me that much more. You should read my further comments to Ian Rose (here), who agreed with me and was willing to allow me to immediately reopen the FA review. With regard to neutrality, I would like you to cite examples. I believe that all facts are neutral, factual, and encyclopedic. The village has not published or commissioned many of my sources; quite a number of them come from the independent Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society, which is a professional and respected organization for research. With regard to a "numbing amount of detail", this is an online encyclopedia. There is no limit on the amount of detail we can go into. The only real issue with great detail is it increases page size, which can be fixed other ways. Readers and Wikipedians generally want the most detail possible in such specific articles.--ɱ(talk) 16:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By far my largest source was The Changing Landscape, an independently-published and independently-written 300-page volume detailing village history and other aspects. It makes no attempts to be promotional.--ɱ(talk) 17:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Miniapolis: As well, if you read Ian Rose's talk page, it better details that he suggested a peer review not based on the article's quality, but based on the fact that it might garner the attention of more editors. He didn't fail it for any lack of quality, merely for only one review in the month-long period, and no responses for a week after that.--ɱ(talk) 17:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are based on the article, which is little changed (except for some apparent reverts) from when I copyedited it at your request as a userspace draft several months ago. Pinging individuals to look over an article (what you seem to consider "peer review") is very different from a formal process by disinterested editors. Due to the recent influx of paid editors on WP attempting to "spin" articles for clients, I'm sensitive to POV. I'm requesting a source review due to possible plagiarism issues, since I found verbatim copy with inadequate attribution (with a footnote, but without quotation marks) accidentally while checking a source during the copyedit. A formal peer review would address issues such as these, but I see haste in trying to get this article to FA. Miniapolis 14:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're overstating that paraphrasing issue, and that was an odd case very early on in this article's development. I'm surprised you don't notice more changes; I've rewritten entire sections, added many images and quite a lot of content, and done quite a bit of formatting since you last reviewed it. I would say it has dramatically changed since you last reviewed it. I am very familiar with the PR process, and I should let you know that of the many that have reviewed the article and draft, none of them had any relation to the content. Most of them made a note to tell me that they've never heard of, or have never lived remotely close to the place. All of my reviewers have been more than critical as well, and none have found this 'vague promotionalism' that you speak of.--ɱ(talk) 01:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've previously reviewed a draft of this article, and provided ɱ with some comments to improve it. That said, I agree that the article is quite long. I don't believe that it's too long to qualify as a featured article, and I have no readily apparent solutions to shortening it, but would certainly not be opposed to be the article being a bit shorter if other editors have suggestions to make it so. ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 00:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images
You've still got a few images fixed at small sizes - this is not a good idea for accessibility reasons
From my understanding, most images should be at the default size, although "Images in which detail is relatively unimportant...can be smaller" (From WP:MOS).--ɱ(talk) 10:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The provision for smaller images applies in circumstances like flag icons, not typically actual images used in article text. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rule doesn't indicate that, meaning I should be able to use it to say that the David Ogilby photo shouldn't have to be 220px. There's no good reason for it to be either, it's not really important enough to be larger, looks bad and worsens the formatting when it's larger, and readers won't care to see a larger image of his portrait, rather than with images of places and landscapes, where larger sizes always help. The other small photos have similar qualities so they work better smaller.--ɱ(talk) 12:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, two of the smaller images are across from the infobox, so I didn't want the text in between to be squeezed even more tightly by larger images.--ɱ(talk) 12:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:BriarcliffRose.jpg needs to explicitly identify the copyright holder
Is that absolutely a necessity? Can't any nonfree images be uploaded which have no known copyright holder? There's almost no information on this graphic, except that the village Garden Club uses the same image, and it's been used in other media; there are a couple of framed, hand-drawn copies at the Historical Society and other residents' houses.--ɱ(talk) 10:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So how do we know this is an official and current logo if there's no information about it? What steps have you taken to try to identify the copyright status of the work? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's written about in a few sources (village gov. publications and BMSHS history books) as the village logo, and it's the only artwork of the Briarcliff Rose that's ever been published or circulated, so I can be certain that it hasn't been replaced by another artist's impression of the rose. I have asked the Historical Society about it, and they've told me that they don't know anything about the original author. I now feel the incentive to ask the village government and perhaps one of the more informed residents about it...--ɱ(talk) 12:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:JohnDavidOgilby.jpg: archival images may not have been formally published - was this one before 1923?
Commons admin Ellin Beltz marked it as PD-old because it's "clearly published and dates circa 1860". Is that sufficient?--ɱ(talk) 10:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not - it's clearly published now, but the tag you're using specifies that it was published before 1923. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll change it back to the most applicable license, what I should have used before although the template didn't exist yet.--ɱ(talk) 12:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Westchester_County_New_York_incorporated_and_unincorporated_areas_Briarcliff_Manor_highlighted.svg: what data was used to create this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rcsprinter123 has been making these maps for a large number of municipalities. I'm not sure what data he's using. I'll ask him on his talk page, unless he answers here first.--ɱ(talk) 10:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Before I start, though, Miniapolis and ɱ, what's this about plagiarism? And what should I be looking out for specifically? Tezero (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing. The relevant plagiarism discussion is now at User talk:Ɱ/Archive 2#Briarcliff Manor article. I kept the wording of some text, as I couldn't find a better or more concise way of putting it, being more technical than descriptive. That text has since been reworded and updated due to more current events, and was moved to the article History of Briarcliff Manor some time ago.--ɱ(talk) 14:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I'll keep an eye out for any more preserved wording I find, but because of the general atmosphere of honesty I won't waste too much time seeking it out. Tezero (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's some inconsistency in the italicization of "Briarcliff Daily Voice" in the sources.
done.--ɱ(talk) 00:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer marking the PDFs with |format=PDF in the references.
Will do.--ɱ(talk) 00:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Dawson, Nick (August 24, 2009). "Hudson Valley Movies". NBC Universal. Retrieved May 10, 2014." - Why not include "Focus Features" as the "work" or whatever? That's done elsewhere, such as in Nationalbridges/National Bridge Inventory.
done.--ɱ(talk) 00:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society 2012 Harvest Wine Dinner. Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society. 2012." - Wait, you're citing a... dinner? Is there any way to find something someone could still access? This is like citing a link you know is dead and will never come back online.
I did use 'cite book'; this was actually the dinner journal for the evening, which had bios on the honored guests, including Mayor Vescio. It is a village historical society publication, but I'll attempt to find a better source still...--ɱ(talk) 00:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, wasn't as hard as I thought it would be.--ɱ(talk) 01:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is that always supposed to be that way? I thought as long as I was consistent in either linking or not linking, it would be OK.--ɱ(talk) 00:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's being consistent in either linking every instance or linking only the first instance, though tell me if you find any FAs that have passed with no publisher/work links. Tezero (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'll do it. Shouldn't be too hard...--ɱ(talk) 02:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks:
174: "for more than 30 years" - the source says "almost 30 years". We don't know how "almost" that is, and maybe he's moved now, so I'd recommend changing this to something like "Robert Klein, a comedian, singer and actor, had been living in Briarcliff Manor for almost 30 years as of 2013."
Huh, not sure why I put 'more than', fixed.--ɱ(talk) 00:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
42: Fine, but why is the African-American population increase relevant? And technically I can't find the info about "2.1 percent" in source 41, presumably used to corroborate that as 42 doesn't say it - do you have a page number or anything?
Well, in a historical demographics section it has relevance, and it's some of the only demographics change information that I've been able to find. And in a village so predominantly white, large increases in other populations certainly is noteworthy. On page 27 of ref 41, there's a demographics chart that gives the details for the described demographics changes.--ɱ(talk) 00:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why only black, though? Is that the only other race that's covered? Tezero (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It also covers the previous sentence about caucasians. Other than those two races, none others have had very significant changes worth mentioning.--ɱ(talk) 02:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Tezero (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
153: good
28: good; "operates the Long Hill Road water treatment plant" is almost too close but I'll give that a pass
Ɱ (talk·contribs), ping me when you've done the linking thing. Tezero (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually thank you for the reminder, I knew there was more I was planning to do and forgot...--ɱ(talk) 05:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, 'work' and 'publisher' fields linked where applicable. I'll add that format=pdf thing next.--ɱ(talk) 22:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tezero: Alright, I've added the PDF thing to all PDFs and I also (while I was at it) checked over all the links for dead ones, all fixed now.--ɱ(talk) 00:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article could be promoted to featured article status now. I recommend that this promotion be done after the concerns expressed by others have been addressed. I am anticipating that no great obstacle to passing this article will be identified.
In my review, I have not verified that the information presented comes from the sources cited because I am assuming good faith that it does. I also did not consider what concepts are not presented in the article, beyond checking to see whether the expected sections were in place.
Here are some problem points. As I said, none of these are so serious as to prevent the promotion of this article to FA status.
The citation style used is neat looking but I do not understand it. On the article talk page I might like to see a 1-2 sentence explanation or naming of the citation conventions applied here.
Thank you so much for your approval and review, as well as the complements provided. I'll start addressing your points. For this above concern, are you referring to Template:Rp, which I use inline with some citations? I'll put a notice about that on the article talk page, unless there's something else/more that you're referring to.--ɱ(talk) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone made a decision not to list subsections in the table of contents. This is okay, but it is not obvious to me why this unorthodox decision was made. Perhaps note on the talk page.
I did that because otherwise the TOC would be abnormally large. The TOC limit template is designed to reduce the TOC on long/many-headed articles like this. I can add a talk page note.--ɱ(talk) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone named "James Stillman" is mentioned. Mostly likely because of time and financial situation, this is James Stillman, but could be his son James A. Stillman, or less likely could be another James Stillman. There are no wikilinks to this person because I see there is lack of source information to make the connection. I wish that the most likely candidate could be noted at least in a footnote or some appropriate way.
A footnote would be good, I'll try that momentarily.--ɱ(talk) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone made the editorial decision to not have red links in the articles for items which could have their own article. I assume this is because of the low likelihood of anyone making articles from the red links. Articles that I might have expected to see redlinked are Trump National Golf Club, Briarcliff Manor Public Library, Chilmark, Thomas Macy, and some others. It just seemed to me that these concepts were likely to be notable by Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, but it is entirely fine to keep them without links.
I can tell you for sure that if Trump, Chilmark, or the library had articles, they would be stubs. Trump is only a few years old and there's still little valuable information about the place or its predecessor clubs. Chilmark is a small residential neighborhood that up until ~50 years ago was just someone's private property. And as for the library, I was able to put nearly all notable information about it directly into this article, and there's not much here. Thomas Macy is someone I haven't researched or even read too much about, so I'm not sure whether he meets notability criteria. For all names and places that I thought might be typically red-linked, I actually decided to make articles for them instead (see Elliott Fitch Shepard and Briarcliff Lodge, among others).--ɱ(talk) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a 2007 document published by the village government itself which could be considered to be a self-published source. Some bold statements are backed to this source which would be better backed by a third-party source, because the information presented is starting to cross the line from simple facts to editorial judgement to present information to create an impression. See Briarcliff_Manor,_New_York#Economy for example of how this source is used; a certain vision of the economy is described with bias to how a local government would like to be seen. Because I think the information in this document is likely the only published perspective of the kind of information it presents, I think it can be used as a source in the way that it is being used, but I do want to note the bias here. It is entirely fine for an article about a city of this size.
Well, I would usually put self-published sources as ones made by a person or company used in that entity's Wikipedia article. For municipalities, ownership is really by the United States. There are state and local governments, as well as chambers of commerce and other entities, but I wouldn't call a NYC government publication a self-published source if it was used in the article New York City, I would only call it self-published if it was used on the article Government of New York City. Regardless, if you point out some bold statements supported by it, I can probably find other sources for it. Also, I should note that the Comprehensive Plan isn't any sort of press release or item for the masses; it's a report mandated by the state government; a report on the services and utilities of the municipality, as well as upgrade plans.--ɱ(talk) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not follow the citation style used in Briarcliff_Manor,_New_York#Parks_and_recreation. I would like to see {{fact}} tags used for statements in bullets which are not backed with any citation. Since practically all of the rest of the article is backed with good citations, I would like to see this section similarly covered.
Well, all of the information here is cited, to ref 78. I put an inline citation at the sentence before the list. That method is commonly used in other articles.--ɱ(talk) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I state that it's a "forum to determine officeholders". The caucus determines the (usually only) nominees for trustees and mayors.--ɱ(talk) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some place called the William Kingsland mansion is mentioned with no context. There should be some explanation of this place somewhere.
I mention the two notable schools that occupied it; ref 5 says it was on Route 9 in Scarborough and burned down in 1982. Should I note all of this in another explanatory note?--ɱ(talk) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some strengths of this article:
It is well written, comprehensive, not overly focused on any points, and would not leave anything to be desired by a reader without specific expectations. I would expect people with expectations are likely to be impressed by this, but I am familiar with the subject matter covered as this is all new to me.
I am impressed with the range of sources cited for the houses of worship section in Briarcliff_Manor,_New_York#Arts_and_culture. I would have expected this to come from a list, but different sources have been found for most of the places presented.
Explore Briarcliff Manor: A driving tour must be a detailed book. I am surprised it was written at all.
Thanks for all the time and thought put into this. Briarcliff Manor is one of the most covered places on Wikipedia for sure. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As said above, thank you for the further comments and praise. I'm very glad for such good approval of my work.--ɱ(talk) 21:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added notes to the article's talk page; let me know what you think.--ɱ(talk) 22:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to ask, for anyone coming across this, should I make any changes to any of the images I've created? I spent countless hours on File:BriarcliffManorCompilation.png and File:BriarcliffMapFinal2.png, although there should be room for improvement and I can easily alter either of them. Any ideas?
I'm actually rather proud of the map, I spent far too long piecing it together on Gimp; totally the wrong software for map-making. But it can definitely be improved.--ɱ(talk) 01:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ I think they're all perfect the way they are. URDNEXT (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't help me! Though, thanks, I really appreciate it.--ɱ(talk) 01:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Please check for duplicated links; there are several. This script is useful User:Ucucha/duplinks. Graham Colm (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked for duplicated links, and I can tell you that any cases of duplicated links are beneficial to the reader, primarily due to an earlier linkage appearing much farther up in the article's text, usually in a less significant place. The duplicated links guideline allows for that exception, as well as that for infoboxes, images, and the lead paragraph.--ɱ(talk) 17:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." I can see three links to Scarborough Historic District on a single screen shot. The two links in the text are only 18 or so lines apart. Graham Colm (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC
You're right on that account, even though one of the three is an image caption. I'll remove the link in the Houses of Worship section.--ɱ(talk) 18:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): czar ♔ 04:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the occasion of Polytron's recent security breach, I thought it apt to seek a bronze star for Fez. It's an underdog of a game that received outstanding reviews but was buried under a mountain of coverage pertaining to its outspoken creator, Phil Fish. The game could have been famous only its relation to Fish, but turned out to have incredible merit on its own. I started to edit this article early in the year and it quickly became a complete rewrite with many interwoven substories about the precariousness of indie game development, the growing pains of online games journalism, the rekindling of interest in the 8-bit "retrogaming" aesthetic, and how esoteric game mechanics could meet the standard Nintendo-inspired influences yet still feel fresh... and receive widespread acclaim. The sourcing is comprehensive, and has led to two separate articles, now GAs: Phil Fish and Development of Fez. It also led to a spate of free use images and audio releases, including the Fez cover art, which became a featured picture. Considering the depth and EV of the gameplay video and other assets, I see more featured pictures in the future.
But this article was one of my bigger labors of love this year, and it led to my interest in asking devs to relicense their assets for the Commons, which has been a successful effort by most standards, as well as my interest in indie game GAs, of which I've had more than several since. The devs were really excited to see the article make the front page of Wikipedia. As relayed back to me, Fish said on Facebook, "somebody took it upon themselves to write a surprisingly long and accurate wikipedia entry for FEZ. im kind of amazed" I had other fun quotes (and Twitter retweets and favs), but I don't know where I put them and I'm leaving town in a few hours. It's been a good run, and the article has touched many people, so I'd like to take it full circle now. The prose (of a somewhat controversial subject) has seen few non-vandal edits since the rewrite, which leads me to believe that it stands to scrutiny and is sufficiently clear and concise. I believe Fez meets the featured article criteria, and I look forward to your feedback. czar ♔ 04:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overall this is a pretty freaking great article, if I may say so myself. All the references are in good shape, with the right date formats, authors, etc, the prose flows well, and all images have adequate FURs. Believe it or not, I haven't found a single issue with the page. Good job on it, Czar! URDNEXT (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Please do not use 3rd level headers or higher, they corrupt the summary list of FA nominations. See FA-guidelines.) GermanJoe (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my bad. Sorry for any incoveniences, GermanJoe! Not happening again. URDNEXT (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
""Continuum" is a synthesized rendition of Frédéric Chopin's Prelude, Op. 28, No. 4." - Can this be expanded or otherwise merged into something else? I really, really don't like one-line paragraphs.
"Fish himself became known for his outspoken and acerbic public persona." - Can you expand a little? Despite all the hype, I actually can't think of any of Fish's actual outbursts other than the cancellation of Fez 2 and saying that the Japanese game industry sucks (which I kind of agree with, when taken in context).
Per WP:EASTER, I don't recommend simply linking "who says, "Hey! Listen!"" - to Navi.
"Fish "fiercely criticized" the game's co-publisher, Microsoft Games Studios, for botching its release,[38] with a lack of promotion and publicity.[38]" - Why is #38 cited twice?
One-line ¶ expanded. I purposely did not go into detail on the specifics of Fish's tabloid-y media coverage because I felt it was non-neutral and non-encyclopedic info. The sources that say he was outspoken go into enough detail, though if you think something specific should be added (perhaps that he made public comments about the industry or something like that) let me know. "Hey! Listen!" should be a redirect to Navi as it's something referenced throughout her article. I'd explain its reference to Navi in the prose, but since the source does not, I expect the logical leap to be made without it appearing as an Easter egg link. #38 looks like a floating citation error—now fixed. czar ♔ 08:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think info on Fish's acerbic nature would be plenty encyclopedic, as it lets the reader draw their own conclusions about him instead of saying "he's a jerk; just trust us", but if you feel strongly about it I won't belabor the matter. And I guess that's a good enough Navi justification, so I can support this in peace. Nice job. Tezero (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All images have sufficient source and author information and are CC - OK.
Flickr-images show no signs of problems or Flickr-washing - OK.
OTRS-images and soundfile have been checked by a member of the OTRS-team - OK.
(added a few more personality rights info tags to play it safe). GermanJoe (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Have you considered separate captions for each gameplay screenshot? Currently the gallery adds little for a "Fez" newbie (like me). OK, those are "gameplay screenshots", but what is actually going on? And what makes the 3 images significant? Any additional, brief caption info would be helpful here. Regarding the number of gallery images, i agree with other reviewers. Gallery images should be used cautiously and only with images of encyclopedic value. The main focus should stay on the article's text, supported by images, infoboxes and other additional elements. GermanJoe (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the caption. I think they're too similar to warrant separate descriptions, but I think the variety of images is still important to visualize the basic gameplay, especially for those who can't see the video. czar ♔ 16:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All sources look reliable; a few like Download.com seem kinda iffy but they're not used for anything substantive but their areas of expertise so I'm fine. Bandcamp's a social media site but it's being used here only as a first-party source so that's also okay.
Spotchecks:
4: good; I can see that not much more was elaborated on about Fish's caustic remarks
3: good
12: good; nice job archiving the fickle 1UP.com
7: good
27: good, though you might want to specify that it was the "You got 2D in my 3D, or maybe 3D in my 2D" award. Leaving it simply as an "award" implies it was a GotY or something.
13: good
As a result, I can continue to support this nomination. Source review passes. Tezero (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
People with visual impairment would appreciate alternative text: a short description of the screenshots of gameplay, such as "Forest stage" and "Gomez standing over a waterfall"; who is Phil Fish and who is Renaud Bédard. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a good idea. Remember, multiple thumbnails aren't against the rules. Tezero (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In reception, removing non-notable authors improves the focus (length criterion); they appear in the references already.
When covering technical faults, I would expect the actual faults. "Game Informer as minor" is less useful than "frame rate stalls during autosaves". 1UP.com describes some serious bugs: "bombs that refuse to budge", "Entire areas of the world map disappear". These pretty serious bugs could be mentioned in the development section.
This would be a good time to decide whether 1UP.com should be italicized; there were no objections.[40]
It looks like some readers are interested in revenue. Perhaps the "At $10 per download" in its first day could be added. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I think I've addressed your concerns, if you can take a look. On the other points: the reception reviewers are listed because the predominant WPVG preference is to list the opinions as the author's and not the magazine's. Not saying I agree, but I've seen FACs asked to conform to this standard. With technical faults, the jargon of screentearing and associated specifics would be needless information for the average reader and I consider it outside the article's scope. I think it would be original research to add anything about the game's revenues if nothing has been published in reliable sources. And I don't agree with that part of WP:COMMA, but that's another thing altogether. But everything else should be done czar ♔ 00:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it necessary to mention the "anti-cubes"? What is the difference between an anti-cube and a cube from harder puzzles? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has sufficient context, yes—the anti-cubes come from harder puzzles. It's explained as much as the cubes. czar ♔ 16:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is important to mention Montreal and Toronto? Are they Canadian cities? Why not simply say "Canadian developers"? Is the nationality important because of the Canadian government loan? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's for spatial context. In a previous draft, Bédard was mentioned as being from Montreal too. Is it unimportant or distracting to you? I don't feel strongly if it's changed to "Canadian", though I prefer specificity when it errs on the side of interesting czar ♔ 20:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The remark "The two—of Montreal and Toronto, respectively[20]—" is quite distracting. As a reader that has hardly any knowledge of Canadian culture, I would appreciate some hints about "Montreal", "Toronto" and "Québécois". As a gamer, I would like to know the relevance to the subject; is video gaming in Canada special in any way? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're looking for. A link to video gaming in Canada would be only peripherally related, almost a submarine link. I'm not exactly the purveyor of Canadian culture myself, but Montreal and Toronto are global cities known worldwide and aren't linked for that reason. As for "Québécois", it's okay to use vocabulary unfamiliar to some. I'm changing the Montreal+Toronto mention to "Canadian", though I think the article will suffer for it. czar ♔ 00:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the links different for "puzzle platform game" in the lead and the first paragraph?
Why both links "indie video game" and "indie game" in the lead?
This "(X360)" in the infobox is confusing and I do not see more information in the body. Was Microsoft Studios the only publisher for X360? Did they participate in the X360 release and not in the Windows one?
Why both links "Microsoft Studios (game studio)" and "Microsoft Games Studios" in the article?
"Cube-like space", a cube has actually six sides; a square, four. Would "square-like space" be more appropriate? Would "horizontal square" be more precise?
"Accrete" does not appear in every dictionary.
Note 1 is confusing: it is about "The final sequence", but there is no mention of sequences before. The following occurrence is "sequences of tetriminos". Do the cubes form these tetrominos?
In "The game's developer described", "developer" means "designer", right?
Would "It prioritizes puzzle-solving and patience over dexterity" be more appropriate? Are there traditional platformers about puzzle-solving and patience?
"The game's settings include", why is the same reference in the middle of the sentence?
"Anthropomorphized" should be "anthropomorphic". No one has said it: the alternative text is worth reading.
The screenshots of gameplay are very nice, but why are they relevant? Why not the screenshots 2 or 3? If they are all relevant, the screenshots for the article could be automatically selected depending on the current day. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 11:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made most of these changes. Some were artifacts of recent editing and others don't make much of a difference but it's easier to unify them than to discuss when someone insists. "Cube-like" should be fine because it's prefaced by talking about four sides. "Horizontal square" would certainly be more confusing. I think it's important to mention the kind of "dexterity", so as to give the sentence context. I chose screenshots that had the most variety. Screens 2 and 3 have a lot of empty space. If you're suggesting that the pictures change by time of day, it sounds inventive but unfeasible (WP users access at all times of the day at once) and way out of scope for this discussion. czar ♔ 15:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not by the time of day (UTC) but the current day (1, 2, 3... 360, 361...); that is feasible. Should we try and see if that improves the article? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a bad idea. For example, someone might look up the Fez article to show their friend something they'd seen the previous day and then be frustrated to find it missing. Honestly, I really don't see the problem with just including a bunch of screenshots; I mean, think of all the non-video-game articles, like those on countries and wide groupings of animals, that have plenty more images. Tezero (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tezero. Gimmickry only muddies an encyclopedia, and there's really no limit to the number of non-free images that can be used in an article—just look at Seattle, San Francisco, London or Statue of Liberty. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All images are free, this is one strong point in Czar. There are 15 screenshots. If there is no limit, why not include them all? Which of those would cause frustration if missing? Screenshot 2 is used in the Korean Wikipedia. Why exactly three screenshots and why these three specifically? Is it because they are the only ones with enough variety? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this is getting way off-topic. Common sense indicates that a 15-screenshot gallery would be overkill. There should be no frustration caused if any one of the 15 were not included because they're not "missing". I have no idea why kowp chose screenshot two, but that would be a question for them, not me. Why are there three? Because we currently have consensus for three. It is an appropriate number that shows a variety of settings and level styles. If you want to make a case for a specific screenshot, that's your prerogative, but everyone else has been fine with the current selections. czar ♔ 12:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would 15 images be overkill? I thought there was no limit. Cannot content like wide images be used? What does Czar think about a random selection? The German Wikipedia shows a gallery of 5 screenshots; is number 3 more sensible in English? I cannot find this consensus for 3 screenshots in the article guidelines or in the article talk page. So, is there a clear consensus that these 3 screenshots and only these 3 screenshots are appropriate for the article? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fifteen images would be far on the large side not so much because of bandwidth concerns, but because the prose isn't that long and galleries are discouraged on Wikipedia. What if, as a compromise, we set up a link like this to view more? Tezero (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is about a general subject for which a large number of good quality images are available, ... editors are encouraged to seek a reasonable level of variety ... Adding multiple images with very similar content is less useful. ... You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can. — Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE)
... the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. ... A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article ... — WP:Gallery
(edit conflict) It's consensus by editing (not an explicit amount from the video game guidelines)—the three images are assumed to be enough if uncontested to this point. If you want to overturn it, your argument has to be enough to convince others to create a new consensus. Unless that pertains to the FAC, the conversation's best suited for the article talk page. The above quotes should explain why 15 gameplay images would be overkill. There is also already a link to the Commons category at the bottom of the page. czar ♔ 02:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The three images were assumed to be enough and relevant. Do the other editors think that these three screenshots are the only appropriate ones and that all of them should be displayed? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fez designer and Polytron founder Phil Fish received celebrity for his outspoken public persona - huh? "received celebrity" sounds really weird. I'd say "gained celebrity" maybe, or "became a celebrity" - let me think on other alternatives...or offer a suggestion yourself
treasure chests animations that liken to that of... - clumsy..two issues...--> "treasure chests animations that resemble/are reminiscent of those of ..."
This second half of the game is less easygoing... --> "more challenging" sounds more natural here.
The game's puzzles are based around discovery. - redundant - let following sentences speak for themselves. Also true of most games. Hence I'd remove it.
Fish "fiercely criticized" the game's co-publisher - dequote - "berated"? "admonished"? lots of alternatives without resorting to quotes
Do we have any information on how much money Fish and others have made out of it so far? And how much it cost to make. Any numbers at all?
Otherwise a nice read and nearly over teh finish line. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber, thanks for the review. I think I got everything—what do you think? As for the "fiercely criticized"—I preferred the quote there because the sentiment is negative. I felt the quote makes it more generous. Anyway, changed everything you mentioned. There is no RS on how much money the game made or cost (other than its sales figures, which are in the article). I did ask on Quora a while ago, but that isn't reliable, and supposedly an old tweet estimated the cost of production at half a million dollars, but the tweets are deleted and the only source is unreliable. czar ♔ 18:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All cool - support now - could add an adverb to convey fierceness...."hotly rebuked?" ....but all in order... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Typically they wait a bit to see if anyone else has input. Shouldn't be longer than a couple days. Tezero (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FAC Coordinator's Comments
I am not satisfied that a consensus has been reached that the FA criteria have been met. The source review seems superficial. For example, what makes this [41] a reliable source? And this [42]? From a superficial reading I see that the prose remains below FA standard (see for example "Fez's development cycle developed a reputation for its protracted five-year length and public exposure." Where we have "development" and "developed" with just one word separating them). I can't speak for my colleague Ian, but the prospects for the promotion of this candidate are not looking good at this stage, and I will not be promoting this until I have seen more thorough reviews that address all the FA criteria. At the moment I would be embarrassed to see this on the Main Page. Graham Colm (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GrahamColm, I myself am not well versed in their editorial policies, but both sites are classed as reliable by the Video games project per WP:VG/RS. Tezero (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, URDNEXT; FA-readiness is not a continuum, but more of a multi-dimensional graph. For example, perhaps the sources would be better received, although Gamasutra and GameSetWatch I wouldn't have expected to be contested. That being said, no, our work there is not done. Tezero (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tezero Are you still on board with the Dogs FA? URDNEXT (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, URDNEXT, I've just been kind of distracted and busy, plus I still haven't played this game (only watched short gameplay videos and read articles) so I'm not well-versed in what exactly is necessary to be covered and what isn't. (Perhaps this discussion should move, though...) Tezero (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Embarrassed" is, I hope, an exaggeration. As for the sources, they should all meet WP:VG/RS vetted standards. If you have any more specific concerns about the prose or anything else, I'm happy to address it. Prose quality hasn't been an issue for me before. czar ♔ 02:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I'm inclined to agree with GrahamColm about the prose quality. I noticed it myself after looking at the article soon after the nom: rough phrasing, structural flaws, repetition and vagueness. Similar problems dogged Mischief Makers a few months ago. Initially, I decided to hold off on my review until other editors had made significant comments on the prose (which did not happen), and then, after the FU3 controversy, I delayed further to avoid potential awkwardness. My Wikipedia time currently is spent scanning materials for Red Phoenix and his Dreamcast project, so I don't have time to prose review such a long article. But I can say that it needs a thorough working-over by at least one outside copyeditor. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I'm very surprised to hear you say that. I gave it another read and rephrased any part I felt you may have been referencing, but I felt that even those changes were minor. I'd be interested to see a few examples of where y'all think the prose is falling short of 1a professional brilliance. czar ♔ 00:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the first paragraph of the lead alone:
"developed by indie developer" — "Developed" and "developer" twice in four words.
"It is a 2D game set in a 3D world: the two-dimensional player-character receives a fez that tears the fabric of his universe to reveal a third dimension." — "2D" and "3D" inexplicably introduced before "two-dimensional" and "three-dimensional", plus "tears the fabric of his universe to reveal a third dimension" is vague and in-universey.
"are built around the core mechanic" — If they're "built around" it, then we already know that the mechanic is important, so "core" is redundant.
"rotating between four 2D views of a 3D space—as four sides around a cube—where the environment realigns between views to create new paths." — Even as someone who has seen the game in action, I find this description hard to follow. What could "four 2D views of a 3D space" mean? The hyphenated section doesn't make it clearer. And "the environment realigns between views to create new paths" is extremely vague. What does "between views" mean? What is "the environment" in this case? What does it mean for the environment to "realign"—was it ever not aligned? What does the phrase "new paths" mean, and why are these paths important?
Like I said, I don't have time to prose review an article of this length—particularly when the prose issues appear to be more than superficial. It needs at least one outside copyeditor (possibly two) to give it a spitshine. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know you don't have the time for a full review, but how would you put those four instances, at least? If you played the game, I think you'd appreciate how the "core mechanic" is known for being notoriously difficult to explain in prose, nevertheless in a single sentence. The other parts seem more like personal preference than "rough phrasing, structural flaws, repetition and vagueness" to me. czar ♔ 05:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been around 77% done with the game for a while (I got stuck and just didn't feel like walkthrough-ing it - Thomas Was Alone was my real gem from that Humble Bundle) and I agree - it's something that pervades nearly every design choice made in the game and yet it's tough to pin down. I'd like to think we could speed-recruit a couple WP:VG copyeditors before this FAC closes, but honestly since no one's gotten back about those questionable Sonic X sources even after I summarized the facts of each one, one can't be too optimistic. Some of these complaints are borderline unactionable, moreover. Tezero (talk) 05:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't unactionable in the slightest. I'm aware that Fez's gameplay is hard to summarize, but that doesn't mean that 1a can be bypassed. @Czar: I see that you've worked on the sentences I mentioned. While it's an improvement, the gameplay discussion is still confusing—and it shows, again, that the article needs fresh eyes. I'll provide rewrite suggestions (and these are only suggestions) for the final two sentences:
"Protagonist Gomez lives on a two-dimensional (2D) plane until he receives a magical fez, which reveals that his world has a third dimension. Controlling Gomez, the player navigates a 2D environment that may be rotated left or right to remove obstacles and solve puzzles."
Take or leave my choices: I only meant to show that these sentences could be phrased in a clearer and more concise way. Grab a copyeditor or two for the rest of the article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your view of the prose, but your opinion is noted czar ♔ 01:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...Screw it, we can still try. I've let WP:VG know. Tezero (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I entered this to support Graham Colm's statement, which you had essentially brushed off. Brush off my feedback as well, if you like—but the nomination gets an oppose from me in its current state. I leave it to the coordinators to decide if the opposition is warranted. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What are the passages that need copy editing? If only a few, I think I can handle them. URDNEXT (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to give the article an extensive (or similar to that) copyedit. Is it mainly a syntax problem? I see sentences that could be better structured. ☠Jaguar☠ 12:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've given most parts of the article a copyedit, the syntax has generally been improved but in all honesty the prose is not a concern at all? Some things here and there could be phrased better, but it's almost negligible. I know that the FAC process is dreary and off-putting, but this article seems to meet much and if not all the FA criteria. It is 1a) well-written, 1b) comprehensive and 2a) lead is concise and summarises the article. Not sure what else there is to copyedit! ☠Jaguar☠ 15:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits were very minor. Looks like Czar made some big improvements in certain areas, though. In any case, @Czar: my schedule has recently opened up, so I'll start one of my standard, line-by-line prose reviews later today. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, the lead's opening paragraph doesn't mention the fez or the protagonist, which leaves the discussion of Fez's gameplay ungrounded. These two elements were in the prose when I first read the article, but they have been removed for some reason. I recommend re-adding them.
"a game mechanic where" — "Where" is a strange word here: is a game mechanic a place? "Wherein" or "in which" would be preferable.
"the viewable two-dimensional world 90 degrees left or right about four sides of a cube" — Three points. First, what is the difference between the "viewable two-dimensional world" and the two-dimensional world? Second, why is it necessary to mention the degree at which the cube turns, given that we already know its number of sides? Third, replacing "about" with "around" would increase clarity.
"the three-dimensional environment" — What is the three-dimensional environment?
"the two-dimensional levels" — This can (and should) be abbreviated to 2D for easier reading—just be sure to introduce the abbreviation in parentheses after the first mention of "two-dimensional".
"The objects in ... The object of" — Two sentences in a row begin with "the object".
"cube fragments" — What is a cube fragment?
"which included Fez's" —> "which documented Fez's".
A rewrite suggestion:
"Fez was first released onas a yearlong Xbox Live Arcade to critical acclaimexclusive on April 13, 2012, to critical acclaim, and was later ported to other platforms." (Italics signify an addition.)
The final paragraph of the lead mostly rattles off awards—tedious reading, even in an article body. The award information should be slimmed down and generalized, and other material (perhaps related to its critical reception) should be put in its place.
"canceled as Fish" —> "canceled when Fish".
"Fez is a two-dimensional platform game set in a three-dimensional world." — Introduce the abbreviations 2D and 3D after the long-form versions here, since you use those abbreviations later.
"a peaceful, two-dimensional life" — What is a two-dimensional life?
"giant golden hexahedron splinter" — What is a hexahedron splinter? Also, it should be "giant, golden".
"viewable 2D world" — Again, what is the difference between the 2D world and the "viewable 2D world"?
"about four sides" —> "around four sides".
"3D cube-like" —> "3D, cube-like".
"Fez's puzzles are built around how" — A little shoddy. Perhaps, "Fez's puzzles involve using" or "Fez's puzzles require the player to use". Just make sure to change the later part of the sentence to "rotation mechanic to reveals new paths and connects".
"forest platforms are tree branches and factory platforms include pistons" — Why is it necessary to mention the various visual themes of platforms? Even if it is, the idea of a "forest platform" (or "factory platform") won't make sense to a non-gamer, and should be replaced with "platforms in a forest" (or other location).
"crates that activate switches, bombs that reveal passages, platforms that collapse, and climbable ivy." — Why is it necessary to list all of these? Surely at least one or two could be removed (particularly "climbable ivy") with no loss in clarity for the average reader.
"hidden warp gates, enigmatic obelisks, Tetris tetrominos, invisible platforms, puns, pixelated hieroglyphics, a decipherable alphabet, QR codes, treasure maps, and treasure chests with keys and artifacts that factor into later puzzles." — Again, why the extensive list? It seems to border on WP:GAMECRUFT.
As an aside, the Gameplay section contains no actual examples of puzzles in Fez. Definitely an oversight to correct: without an example, all the talk of "puzzles" has no meaning to someone unacquainted with the game.
"The game does not depend on item collection and an inventory, but vague hints." — What does it mean for a game to "depend on item collection and an inventory", and how can a game depend on "vague hints"? I'm lost.
"Its puzzles can be solved soon after their discovery." — That seems to be the nature of puzzles in general. Why is this relevant?
"Fez presents false signals alongside decipherable codes that the player can either choose to interpret or ignore." — Is a "false signal" disinformation or a red herring? What is the purpose of "decipherable codes"?
"One of the game's recurring themes is an ancient civilization that attempted to make sense of their dimension." — If this is the 2D/3D dimension, it should be clarified.
The Fish quote in Gameplay refers to "Trixels", which are not introduced until the Development section. It should be moved down (or removed from the article) to prevent confusion.
"traditional platforming dexterity" — What is "traditional" about it?
"that harkens back to" — Informal phrase. Perhaps "in reference to games from".
"Its homage includes Tetris tetrominos inscribed on the walls and in the sky, The Legend of Zelda treasure chest animations, Super Mario Bros. mushroom levels, travel by pipe, and floating platforms. It also features Nintendo Entertainment System-style sound effects, the navigational aide Dot (who says, "Hey! Listen!"), and sewer levels presented in the style of a Game Boy display." — More gamecruft, including a second (unnecessary) mention of Tetris tetrominos.
"alleyways with neon signs" — Why is this necessary to mention?
"Fez's New Game Plus mode imports previous game progress as Gomez collects "anti-cubes" for the harder puzzles towards the 64-cube goal, and adds another perspective-based feature." — The grammar of the pre-comma segment breaks down at "progress as Gomez", and "for the harder puzzles towards the 64-cube goal" is impenetrable to me. And what is this "perspective-based feature"?
That's it for now. It's a very pretty article—excellent work securing all of this free media. Prose definitely needs work, but it shouldn't be too much trouble to clean up. I'll be back tomorrow with more of my review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prose review from JimmyBlackwing, part 2
"While Fez was released to wide acclaim, Fish himself became known for his outspoken and acerbic public persona." — Why is this in the opening paragraph of the Development section, or indeed in that section at all? It would make more sense in Reception. Further, why contrast ("while") Fez's acclaim with Fish's persona, given that nothing negative is said about the latter?
A sentence rewrite:
"The game that became Fez's development began whenas Montreal-based Phil Fish in Montreal and Toronto-based Shawn McGrath in Toronto collaborated on a puzzle game, envisioned by McGrath's idea for a puzzle game based, in which a 3D space was viewed from multiple 2D angleson 2D views of a 3D space."
"lore" — It's very informal to apply this word to a work of fiction. Try "setting" or "backstory".
"Fez was first ... Fez was nominated" — Two sentences in a row begin with "Fez was".
"and when Fish" — "and, when Fish".
I don't understand what the IGF and GDC awards have to do with Fish's exit from mainstream game development. Perhaps break that single sentence into two.
"The game won 'Excellence in Visual Art', and created a surge of public interest in Fez" — Grammatically, this means that Fez created a surge of public interest in Fez. Perhaps "which created" instead of "and created".
"concurrent to a similar swell of interest in indie game developers" — What does this mean?
"with a more experimental ethos" — I have no idea what this means. More experimental than what? And what is an experimental ethos?
"considered canceling the project when the nearby Québécois developer-publisher Trapdoor offered to help." — This means that Trapdoor's offer led Fish to consider canceling the project. Does that represent the sources or is it a grammatical error?
"partnership rescued the game" — Partnership with his friends and family or with Trapdoor, or both?
"the earlier PAX East 2011" — I don't understand what this means. How does it relate to the PAX 2011 already described?
A rewrite:
"The film chronicles the stories offollows the production of games by several indie developers at various stages of their games' development cycles."
"jeopardizes the game's future" — "The game" should be clarified as "Fez", since discussion of other indie projects has just taken place.
"exacerbates his outspoken public perception" — "Exacerbate" means "to make worse". Is that in line with the source? Further, what is an "outspoken public perception"?
"the part where" — "the moment when".
"end of development" —> "end of Fez's development".
"Independent Games Festival Chairman" — You already mentioned and linked IGF earlier. Axe the link and abbreviate to IGF for easier reading—just be sure to introduce the abbreviation first.
"Jonathan Blow, and that he" — I don't understand how his burnout is causally related to the positive feedback, so perhaps replace "and that" with "but that".
"and sold" —> "and it sold".
"their co-publisher" — Who is "they"?
"its release" — The release of Microsoft, "they", the XBLA platform or the game? It's not clear.
"PC" — "PC" is a casual term best replaced with a concrete operating system. Apply this principle to all uses of "PC" in the article.
"their long development cycle" — Who is "they"?
"turns 2D tiles ("triles") into sides of a 3D cube pixel" — This is hard to follow. Perhaps just scrap the talk of "3D cube pixels" and use the technical word (voxel) with a wikilink. I would recommend this rewrite: "uses 2D tiles ("triles") as texture maps on the sides of voxels".
"each tiled side of the 3D trixel, which Bédard's custom software compiled into 3D trixels" — I have absolutely no idea what this means.
"'overwhelming', but" —> "'overwelming' but".
"philosophy, where" — A philosophy is not a place, so this should be "wherein" or "in which".
"its code never contained an antagonist" — Why "its code"? This is not really a programming issue. Perhaps "its design".
"while borrowing its sounds" — What is "it"?
"portions of Fez game" — Should be "portions of Fez" or "portions of the game".
"its sound effects" — What is "it"?
"and based the" —> "and he based the".
"Fez's pre-2010 music ideas" — Which are?
"its sound qualities" — What is "it"?
"decided against it" — What is "it"?
"called the work" — Which work?
"Game Informer's Miller" — Should be a full name.
"He later released" — Who is "he"?
"ahead of high-budget games like Black Ops 2 and Halo 4." — Is this original research, or does the source explicitly point out that Fez beat triple-A games?
"developer Jason Rohrer" —> "developer Jason Rohrer's", since he isn't connected to Warner.
"its minimalism" — What is "it"?
"likened its art style to Cave Story" — Unless they likened the art style to Cave Story as a whole, this should be "likened its art style to that of Cave Story".
"its nostalgic manner" — What is "it"?
A rewrite:
"Oli Welsh of Eurogamer lamented howthat 'retro pixel art' became an indie game cliché during the length of the game's development, but he believed that Fez stood out fromsaw a departure from other indie gamethe stereotypes of its peers. He noted that the game was dedicatedalongside the game's dedication to the wonderment of early Nintendo titles, noting,and that 'Fish clearly worships the Nintendo of his boyhood'."
"Welsh described Fez as Shigeru Miyamoto's peace-loving 1970s surrealist 2001: A Space Odyssey" — What does that mean?
"Edge described it" — What is "it"?
"Echochrome did it better, among others" —> "Echochrome and other games used the technique more effectively".
"potential best of the bunch" — There's a missing word here, or perhaps just a grammatical error. It needs to be fixed, either way.
"Escher-heavy" — What does it mean to be "Escher-heavy"?
"Welsh compared its" — What is "it"?
"to 80s game" —> "to the 80s game".
"They also came to" — Who is "they"?
"Polygon's Gies described his uncertainty about the intentionality of technical frame rate issues as having a 'certain genius'." — I'm baffled by this sentence. What does it mean?
"year, and after the Humble Bundle" —> "year, and, after the Humble Bundle".
Thanks for the review, @JimmyBlackwing. I believe I've addressed your concerns, if you'd like to take a look. czar ♔ 04:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Very, very nice article. Structure and coverage are solid, and it's one of the prettiest VG FACs I've ever seen. Prose has improved dramatically since my first comment. (Hopefully the few wording tweaks I made weren't against the sources.) WPVG will be lucky to have an FA this good. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about the fourth Metallica studio album, a masterwork of technical thrash and musically, one of their finest hours. I've been working on this article back and forth a year, and think it is ready for a FA candidature at its present state. I'm sure it would be an interesting read for those who will review it.--Retrohead (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: for the purpose of clarity, all citation numbers are given as of this revision, unless otherwise noted--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cites 1, 2 & 3 are all from the band website. Generally, I'm not sure that's supposed to be used as a source, but since its just for release dates for the singles (as opposed to something more controversial like sales numbers or something), I doubt it would be a problem
Cite 8 will need fixed, it just goes to a blank page
Cite 14, the BBC review, just goes to a blank page
Cite 19, 500 greatest metal albums on Google books, is a dead link
Cite 28, Disco, Punk, New Wave, Heavy Metal, and More: Music in the 1970s and 1980s on Google books. Is there a page view option for this?
Cite 33 goes to CD Universe to cite a review from Q. Is there any other way to verify the Q review?
Cite 34 should probably have an "in German" language tag
Cite 35 will need an archived page since link no longer works right
Cite 37 and 72 seem to be the same; they should be merged
Cite 40 original url redirects to the page (at a different url). Perhaps update to the new URL?
Cite 43 if this one is referring to a print article, then disregard this comment, but if there is an online article, its missing the url
Cite 59, Canadian charts citation, is a dead link
A few other little things here and there, like a few format things to fix, or make more consistent
I've addressed all of your concerns L1A1 FAL, except for replacing the reviews by BBC Music and Q magazine. I think the BBC website is undergoing a reconstruction at the moment, and I'll update the url as soon as I can; as for Q, I don't have the September 1988 edition of the journal, so I went using CD Universal as a reference, which quotes the Q column.--Retrohead (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I got for now. I'll keep an eye on this and pop in if I have any comments about the sources or anything else--L1A1 FAL (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have made some edits on this page in the past, including (from what I can tell) one fairly large edit involving putting a quote into prose. However, I do not believe that I would be considered a "major contributor" to the article, therefore, I feel comfortable in offering my support for this article for featured status. If anyone feels the need to raise issue with my minor level of involvement with the article, then please dismiss my opinion.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Album was certified gold by the British Phonographic Industry in 2013, which isn't mentioned in the article. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added it in the certification table. Thanks for the reminder.--Retrohead (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth adding to the "Commercial performance" section as well. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The album's front cover is mentioned in the introduction, but nowhere else? A glaring omission this is, because there can be nothing in the lead which isn't discussed later on in the article. Lead's meant to summarise, not have exclusive information. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it adequate to add it to the background? It's too tiny to have a section of its own, and none of the other sections seems like a good fit to it.--Retrohead (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could do, I guess. If you tie it in with the revealing of the album title etc. at the end of that section. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've shaken the order of the sentences a bit in order to avoid being repetitive with the prose in the lead.--Retrohead (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was still an awful lot of repetition from the lead to the article body, so I reworked the material to reduce the problem. Binksternet (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Metallica_-_And_Justice_for_All.ogg: purpose of use should be expanded. Lyrical meaning can be conveyed with lyrics without the inclusion of a sample, so you need to be able to justify why a sample should be here. Same with File:Metallica_-_One.ogg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've filled a more detailed rationale for both samples. I suppose the images are fine too.--Retrohead (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...released on August 25 1988 on Elektra Records" - shouldn't it be by Elektra? I don't know if this is a grammatical idiosyncrasy of the area, but it seems to me that since Elektra is the label that released the album, "by" is the correct preposition. (I note that "by" is used in the lower in the body)
Corrected. It was "by" until a month ago, but must have been changed to "on" during the copyediting.
The background section seems like it's trying to cram too much into a single paragraph - I'd probably split the chronological bits into their own paragraph and treat the record label stuff separately. It also left me with the question of when the decision to go with Phonogram over Q Prime was made.
The thing is the record deal is part of the chronology. If I put it into another paragraph, the prose would jump chronologically backwards.
Well, right, in that it was an event, but it's more relevant to the question of who would release the album rather than when it would be written and recorded. Thematically it's a separate issue. I'd also assume that the contract wrangling started shortly after Master of Puppets was released in 1986 and their previous contract expired, which of course predates Hetfield's broken wrist (can we get a month and year for that, by the way?), Newsted the band, etc. It would make more sense to discuss the label bidding, then address the specific issues that affected the production of the album.
Only use first names the first time an individual is introduced - I noticed Newsted was repeatedly referred to by his full name, for instance.
I've reduced the names and attributed their roles in the their first mentioning in the text.
Relatedly: "...credited as written by Burton and played by Metallica's bassist at the time, Jason Newsted" - we already know that Newsted was the new bassist, and that he replaced Burton. I'd trim it to "credited as written by Burton and played by Newsted."
Surprised I haven't noticed this so far. Fixed, regardless.
Watch your tenses - there's an odd mix of past and present tense when it should generally be past tense. For instance, ""was written by German poet Paul Gerhardt, but is erroneously attributed to Burton" - it should be "but was erroneously" - another example: Borivoj Krgin's review of the album "it is the most ideal album he has heard" - should be "was the most ideal album he had heard"
Corrected this too.
Also check for passive voice - "Clink was fired", "Metallica's music was considered", etc.
Checked. There was another issue as whether the band was referred in third person plural or singular, but found no such omissions in the current state.
Why bother to include the Nielsen sales figures if they're incomplete?
For reader's curiosity, I believe. They aren't obligatory, but it won't hurt to have them.
There are several duplicate links in the article - there's a script you can install that helps you find them (you can get the code here if you don't already have it - it's the first line). Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Parsecboy, I don't have that script available, but found three repeatedly-linked words which I've corrected. However, I might be missing some, and your assistance would be more than welcomed.--Retrohead (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All you have to do is add importScript('User:Ucucha/duplinks.js'); // [[User:Ucucha/duplinks]] to your common.js subpage, and it adds a button in your toolbox when you're on an article. It's rather useful. Parsecboy (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, understood. Those were all of the duplicate links.
One other point I noticed today - the Metallica article characterizes Newsted's treatment during the production of this album as "hazing" - if that's correct, it should definitely be included here. Parsecboy (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly believe that is not the issue, despite the band's page being FA. The current band members stated numerous times that information is not true.
Fair enough. Maybe the band's page ought to be fixed though, so they're in agreement. Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now..... the singles are not discussed within article at all except for a mention in the infobox (something I'm surprised to see wasn't included when it became GA), and I have other concerns......
Unlike pop-rock albums, singles from heavy metal albums rarely chart. If you check Metallica discography#Singles, you'll see that only "One" had moderate success on the international charts, which isn't enough to justify the existence of a 'Singles' section. I've been reading GA album articles by mainstream artists, but this one is not similar with those. By the way, how many metal songs are on today's Billboard Hot 100? Zero to one, I guess.
Charts weren't my concern. What I meant was that if listing singles an in infobox, they should be mentioned within the article, even if only briefly. I would mention them in probably "lyrics" or "music". Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, see what you meant. The last sentence of the first paragraph from 'Production and recording' mentions that those songs were released as singles.
They should also be included in the lead, and it wouldn't hurt to include release dates in article body Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reluctant to include prose such as "Single 1 was released on X date, single 2 was released on Y date..." because it makes the article trite and boring to read. Me for example, as a Metallica fan, am more interested in reading what were the lyrics about, or what in the production caused the low quality sound, rather than the exact release dates of the singles that hardly mattered. The overly detailed prose was the reason that music articles such as Thirteen, The Love Club EP, and City of Angels failed FAC.--Retrohead (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about something like "The album spawned three singles, X, Y, and Z"? Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"recording with Clink didn't work out"..... avoid contractions unless part of a quote or title
Done.
Music
I don't think everyone is going to automatically know what "dry, sterile production" means.
I don't know if it's a fact or coincidence, but at least eight reviews of the album used the exact same description for the production: "dry, sterile". The prose from the next paragraph implies that "dry" is referring to the inaudible bass guitar, and partially to the "thin" drum sound.
It still isn't the best phrasing, though :/ Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should I put quote marks or paraphrase the sentence?
Either one of those would work quite well Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Track listing
If James Hetfeild wrote all the lyrics, what is the "music" parameter in the tracklisting box referring to?
The music parameter is attributing who wrote the music (guitar riffs, bass lines, drums, etc.)
The main listing and Japanese bonus track need citations
Added.
References
FN9: Capitalize the "M" in AllMusic, publisher is missing
FN49: Unlink Rolling Stone, and publisher is missing
FN's 49, 52, and 53: publishers are missing
FN54: Unlink Guitar World, and publisher is missing
FN57: Missing publisher
FN's 66 and 67: Same as FN49
FN68: not exactly FA-worthy
FN69: same as FN54
FN's 70 and 71: Same as FN49
FN72: Missing publisher
FN73: Unlink MTV News
Corrected the issues. Replying to your concerns about the reliability of references 10 and 68—they are both interviews with bandmembers Jason Newsted and James Hetfield, respectively, done by a journalist acredited with name and publishing company.--Retrohead (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Support pending a few items I'd like to see addressed as follows:
In the lead you mention it was released as a vinyl disc, but surely that wasn't the only format? It's a bit confusing because you mention vinyl in the lead, and the next mention of format is of a CD single in the Production section. I can't find any other mention of the release formats.
I've mentioned it in the article's body as well. The point in the lead was to notify that the album was released on two discs after being initially released on one. The singles are not necessarily connected with this sentence.
"...And Justice for All was Metallica's first studio album to feature bassist Jason Newsted after the death of Cliff Burton in 1986." I think the "studio album" vs EP lingo might confuse or escape some people. Do you think it would be more reader-friendly to write "first full-length studio album" or something similar so they don't get to the next sentence and think, "Isn't an EP a studio album?"
Agree. Even I was confused by this terminology when I started editing Wikipedia, and it could be not quite understandable for readers that aren't much into music. Fixed, regardless.
"Rasmussen was initially unavailable for the planned start at January 1, 1988" Can we write "on January 1, 1988"? Sounds more natural, I think.
"But things did not work out as planned, and three weeks later Rasmussen became available after Ulrich gave him a call." I think you could lose the leading "but" and still have the same meaning.
Corrected per suggestion.
The Music section is really good; I think you capture the important things about the composition and such. The sections on Newsted's contributions are quite interesting to me as I've listened the album many times and always wondered why the bass is so lost in the mix. I'm listening to "One" right now and you would never think they even recorded a bass part.
Thanks for the kind words. Despite the sound omissions, I still think it captures Metallica at their best.
"McIver noted that the band's main lyricist, James Hetfield, wrote about topics that he has not addressed before, such as his revolt against The Establishment." Maybe "had not addressed before"?
Also fixed.
Track Listing... what's the deal with the collapsible boxes? Is that a thing now? I don't like them.
All I know is that there were few discussion about whether the bonus track should be hidden or not, but honestly, I haven't paid much attention to that debate. It's the same to me, so if you suggest un-hiding the extra tracks, will do.
One other comment I noticed while going through the article again: "During the World Magnetic Tour in 2009, 'The Shortest Straw' made its way back into the setlist after a 12-year absence, and has subsequently become a permanent fixture in the band's setlist." The "permanent fixture" statement doesn't seem to be present in the cited source. What is your source for that? I'm also wary of making statements like this because if they ever drop it from the set list, someone has to remember to go update this. In fact, I looked up a random set list of theirs from 2012 and "The Shortest Straw" isn't on it. It can't very well be a "permanent fixture" in that case. How do you feel about rewriting that section a bit so it doesn't require so much ongoing attention? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I usually use setlist.fm as a starting point for information like that (check number 61). The song was sporadically performed from 2009 onward, so agree, it's definitely not a set-fixture. As for these live performances statistics, I remember that some IP user updated information the very next day after Metallica debuted "The Frayed Ends of Sanity" in May this year. This is highly visited article, so incorporating coverage about live performances won't be an issue, I believe.--Retrohead (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, ok. Well, it's not a dealbreaker. I've struck my "tentative" above and am fully supporting the nomination. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support pending finishing the suggestions from other reviewers. Compositionally the article looks great. I was a bit surprised so see a lack of image. The ones that come to mind are: Burotn, Newstead, Ulrich, and a better zoom of the 4 of them than the pic at the bottom (from the 2000s?). Also, I think that you should cover the list of video albums where the songs were featured, especially the Metallica Through the Never. Nergaal (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment Nergaal. The lack of images is because Commons doesn't have illustrations from the period the album was released, and partially because I'm not knowledgeable with Wikipedia's policy for uploading non-free content. The picture form the 'Live performances' is from 1989, but since I'm not computer savvy, I can't crop it for a closer view.--Retrohead (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Here we have the story of another Rhodesian-born World War II flying ace, Caesar Hull, who left the family farm in Swaziland to join the RAF in 1935. After a few years' concentrating on aerobatics, war intervened, compelling Hull to put his talents to other uses. He played an important role in the fighting around Narvik during May 1940, among other things shooting down four German aircraft in an afternoon over the town of Bodø. For this he won the DFC. The RAF's first Gloster Gladiator ace, he was shot down himself the next day and soon thereafter invalided to England. He returned to action in August 1940 as the commander of No. 43 Squadron RAF in the Battle of Britain—one of only three Southern Rhodesian-born members of "The Few". He was killed in action a week later during a dogfight over south London.
This article passed GA about six months ago and I believe it is at least close to the FA criteria. Any and all comments are welcome, and I hope you enjoy the article. —Cliftonian(talk) 15:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – thoroughly researched and cited, well paced and balanced; the article is excellently written: the contrast between Hull's gung-ho shout of joy at the declaration of war and his death at the age of 26 is set out with remorseless clarity. Moreover, I think the nominator's handling of the Memorials section shows a restraint that would be beyond many of us. In terms of the FA criteria, in my opinion the article meets them all on prose. I don't presume to judge the admissibility of images, excellent as the existing ones are. A really fine article. But can we have a happy ending to your next FAC, Cliftonian? – Tim riley talk 18:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the very kind words and the support, Tim. I will try and find a more cheerful subject for next time, I promise. —Cliftonian(talk) 19:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't it "invalided", and not "invalidated"? Mr Stephen (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Argh! So it is. How embarrassing. Thanks! =) —Cliftonian(talk) 07:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Regarding the "defence of Narvik" you refer to here, I hope that won't be part of the FA summary when the time comes. After all, after capturing Narvik on 9 April, it was the Germans who were fighting on the defensive in the Narvik area. The Allies and Norwegians only captured Narvik on 28 May, and at that point the Allies had already decided to evacuate. Hull and others were in effect fighting to hold back German forces who were advancing from further south in Norway, forces that could otherwise have interfered with the evacuation. The rank and file Allied troops knew nothing about this planned evacuation, indeed nor did the Norwegian government, the latter being kept in the dark because the British did not trust they would keep the evacuation secret. Plus the Allied forces on the ground around Narvik were mostly Norwegian, French and Polish, it was further south, around Bodø (where Hull & Co. were sent), that the troops were Anglo-Norwegian. Different fronts entirely, but closely connected, as the southern (Bodø) front prevented German forces from rescuing the trapped German forces further north (Narvik). The article is fine, I just got a tiny bit worried about the future FA summary. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for my mistake in the summary above—I've changed it now to say simply "fighting around Narvik". Thank you for the explanation, it is much clearer to me now. —Cliftonian(talk) 12:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is yet another example of the value of Wikipedia's reviewing processes. Going through the PR, GAN or FAC process is not always comfortable, but it don't half polish our drafts up. Kudos to Cliftonian and Manxruler! Tim riley talk 21:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - all OK
all images are PD (age or own work) with complete source and author information. GermanJoe (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Just a few issues to be cleared up:
"Hull grew up between Rhodesia, South Africa and Swaziland": I suspect you don't mean "between" geographically, but rather that his early years were divided among these places. If so you should reword accordingly. This issue occurs in the lead and in "Early life".
Question: is Shangani a town? The WP disambiguation does not mention it, only the river (and the patrol).
Shangani is also a small settlement, both at the time and today largely dedicated to farming and mining. See here. I've added it to the disambiguation page and have redlinked it in the article—I'll make a short page later. —Cliftonian(talk) 07:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, subject to a sources check which, if no one does it in the next couple of days or so, I will do. All the above issues resolved satisfactorily. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and for your help Brian. Hope you're well, take care. —Cliftonian(talk) 19:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments -- Recusing from coord duties; I have an open FAC of my own right now and besides I can hardly resist another WWII ace article...
Copyedited as usual, so pls let me know any issues -- outstanding points:
I got what you meant by "because of his ignorance of Afrikaans" in the lead but I think it'd be simpler to just use the wording in the main body, i.e. "because he did not speak Afrikaans". I don't think repeating the phrasing is a prob but if you want to avoid that then I'd just swap 'em.
OK, I've gone with using the same wording twice. —Cliftonian(talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Peter Townsend, who joined the squadron with the same level of seniority as Hull" -- bit of a mouthful, "seniority" is an important concept in the military but do we simply mean he was the same rank as Hull?
The source (Musgrave) says "Peter Townsend&nsbp;... also joined the squadron, and with the same level of seniority he and Caesar became close friends." The other sources I have seen just mention them joining around the same time and having the same rank. —Cliftonian(talk) 08:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"nine possibles" -- the usual term is "probables", what does the source say?
Source says: "during seventy individual combats, [No. 263 Sqn] claimed at least twenty-six victories with another nine possible, against limited own losses". —Cliftonian(talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The first of these successfully landed in German-held territory before burning out, allowing the crew and paratroopers aboard to exit safely, but the second spiralled out of control and crashed, killing eight German paratroopers." -- A little confused about just which aircraft are referred to, presumably the Ju 52s but you've already said they were "destroyed", which seemed to be the end of the matter. Let me know and perhaps we can come up with slightly different wording.
The problem is that we know that of the three Ju 52s two had paratroopers on board and one had supplies, and that we don't know in which order Hull destroyed them. I have tried to reword: " ... destroyed two more Ju 52s. These German aircraft had been heading to the aid of the hard-pressed German forces fighting around Narvik; one of the Ju 52s was loaded with supplies, while the other two were carrying Fallschirmjäger paratroops. One of the latter aircraft successfully landed in German-held territory before burning out, allowing the crew and paratroopers aboard to exit safely, but the second spiralled out of control and crashed, killing eight German paratroopers." Is this better? —Cliftonian(talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Hull expressed considerable surprise at this sudden rise in station." -- I assume "this rise in station" means "his elevation to squadron commander"; if so I'd suggest the wording I've just used would be clearer. Also is there any reason given for his surprise, since moving from flight commander to squadron commander was a logical progression?
It doesn't say exactly. Perhaps because he had only recently returned to duty after being wounded? The wording is : "As if to emphasise his surprise at suddenly becoming CO, he followed the description of himself as "Commanding No 43 Sqn" in the endorsement of Badger's log with four exclamation marks." I've added this little detail to the article. —Cliftonian(talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"On 4 September, Hull led a group of Hurricanes in a decisive aerial victory over a large group of Bf 110s over coastal Sussex." -- I think we need more detail on how this constituted a decisive victory; are there any figures available for victories v. losses, as with the previous engagement? FWIW, I can probably check a source or two myself today or tomorrow...
Had a squizz at Stephen Bungay's The Most Dangerous Enemy, probably the best account I've read of the Battle of Britain, and there's no figures re. 43 Sqn on 4 September there. However he does mention that the German formation that Hull and his boys came up against on 7 September comprised almost 1,000 aircraft (around 350 bombers and 600 fighters), so it might be worth mentioning that -- I can supply full reference/page details if you're interested. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, anything that would improve the article has my support. —Cliftonian(talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"As with the 1st [of September], the 3rd was less hectic, allowing No 43 Sqn to catch its breath before another big battle on the 4th, when Caesar Hull led the unit into a large formation of Bf 110s over the Sussex coast just after lunchtime. Flt Lt Dalton-Morgan, freshly out of the sick bay, avenged his wounds by sending a Bf 110 down in flames north of Worthing and chasing another until it force-landed in a field near Shoreham. Sgt Jeffreys also downed a Bf 110 in a field, and Hull and Upton seriously damaged two more Zerstorers. A fourth Bf 110 was chased across the Channel by Belgian Plt Off van den Hove d'Ertsenrijck, who sent it crashing into the sea seven miles south of Brighton, although his Hurricane (L1386) was hit in return, and he had to make an emergency landing at RAF Ford. The Messerschmitts massacred by No 43 Sqn that day were from ZGs 2 and 76, although the multiple claims and losses make it difficult, with any certainty to tie up individual 'kills'."
I've fleshed the passage on this out a bit. —Cliftonian(talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Structure and, aside perhaps from the point immediately above, detail look fine to me.
Happy to go with Joe's assessment of the images.
Source-wise, notwithstanding a welcome review by Brian or Nikki, I have to admit I'm wondering about the emphasis placed on the Bill Musgrave article, since I don't know his qualifications or how much quality control the B of B Historical Society exercises on material it publishes. Do other reviewers have any thoughts? All others look reliable to me.
I personally think the article is okay as it seems to generally match up with the other sources I have seen but I'll bow to consensus on this. I have cut down the references to Musgrave by about half, substituting more stable references to Beedle, Saunders etc. About half of the remaining references to him are backed up by others, and the other half are more obscure, anecdotal-type stuff about his childhood and family. In my search for more sources I also found material for a new section at the end about his character and reputation, which I think fleshes out the article nicely and wraps it up a bit better. —Cliftonian(talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry haven't been back lately, I will look the whole thing over again soon. In the meantime, I think you're on the right track with Musgrave, that is you should probably use him just to flesh out early life and/or anecdotal info but concentrate on your other, more clearly reliable, sources for the operational aspects. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Johnny, I've checked the changes, and see no reason not to promote now. The passage about the Ju 52s is complicated but that's not your fault and I think you've explained it about as well as one could -- I just tweaked a little there, plus a couple of other things we discussed previously. Well done again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this Ian. Looks great. Have a top weekend. —Cliftonian(talk) 07:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've reworded in both cases. —Cliftonian(talk) 11:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
invalided - link, perhaps? Doesn't seem to be a common term
In Commonwealth English it is. I think it's clear from context anyway, no? —Cliftonian(talk) 11:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The section #Early life has 3 mentions of South Africa in three sentences. Might want to find a way to trim it.
I removed the second mention as I think most people will know (certainly from context) which Jo'burg we are talking about. —Cliftonian(talk) 11:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I remember hearing that World War II is more common in the US, and Second World War is more common in the UK. Perhaps standardize the use?
I personally quite like mixing it up to give the prose some variety, but since this article is relatively short we'll go with "Second World War". —Cliftonian(talk) 11:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both paragraphs in #Early war start with No. 43 Squadron (and the next paragraph starts No. 263 Squadron). Rather repetititive
limp north - people limp. Aircraft don't, at least not in a literal sense. Perhaps another term?
I don't see any need to change this one—it's a common usage in a military context when referring to ships, aircraft etc that are damaged and returning to base. —Cliftonian(talk) 11:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mrs Wendy Bryan - Why the "Mrs"? Wendy is generally a woman's name, so per WP:HONORIFIC this is not necessary
My intention was to gently make clear why her surname was different, but I guess this isn't really necessary. —Cliftonian(talk) 11:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
with Wendy Bryan present - Why not just Bryan, as you've just mentioned her the paragraph above? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the review and the helpful comments Crisco. I hope my replies are satisfactory. Have a great Sunday. —Cliftonian(talk) 11:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Crisco. I'll be there. —Cliftonian(talk) 11:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 05:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Margaret Bondfield is a significant though relatively overlooked figure in the long struggle for women's equality. Perhaps it was her unglamorous old-fashioned manner – long black skirts, schoolmistressy voice etc – that put people off, but she has a terrific record of "firsts" to her credit, culminating in her appointment as Britain's first woman cabinet minister in 1929 – not bad for an uneducated country "shopgirl" who left school at 13. As a suffragist she was an "adultist", fighting for the extension of the franchise to all women and all men, regardless of gender, class or property qualifications. Her stint as Minister of Labour (1929–31) came at a hideously difficult time, and she has been castigated within the Labour movement for her actions in office – but it is hard to see, in the circumstances, how she could realistically have acted otherwise. So here she is, after a pretty thorough PR process, ready for your judgement on her FA-worthiness. Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. And as for the attire, black is the new black.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and for previous review help. I can't help feeling that Miss B's image as a black-clad killjoy is unfair; see this hilarious clip of MacDonald introducing (or trying to introduce) his 1929 cabinet. She looks rather charming, I think. See also Lansbury, glowering in the background, Brianboulton (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment(s) I looked at this article at peer review when it was already well written and sourced and it has improved since. Taking another look..
In the infobox the abbreviation "PC" is used for Privy Council of the United Kingdom, would a reader arriving at the article understand this abbreviation?
It is normal to present and link postnominals in this way. I have, however, equated postnominals as between text and infobox. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the Lead Second MacDonald ministry is wikilinked twice, but with different text (Labour government of 1929–31 & second Labour government) - is this needed?
In Childhood and family, William Bondfield is credited as "co-designer of a flying machine". I presume this is the Aerial steam carriage however he is not mentioned in the wp article about it with William Samuel Henson and John Stringfellow being given credit - I do not have access to the Hamilton reference used to support this claim to be able to check.
I can't speak for the WP article you mention, but William Bondfield's accociation with the flying machine is mentioned in several sources, including Margaret's biography, Fran Abrams, and Hamilton who says: "He and William Stringfellow worked together on the aeroplane model actually exhibited in flight at the Great Exhibition of 1851, which anticipated some of the essential features—propellor and tubular boilers—of modern machine". Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting name variation here William Stringfellow could be a corruption of William Samuel Henson & John Stringfellow.— Rodtalk 15:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems that Hamilton got Stringfellow's first name wrong – but that's not really a matter for this article, which doesn't acyually mention Stringfellow. I don't see the need to pursue this issue further. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Campaigns and war, the sentence "Later in the war the government, concerned by Bondfield's association with peace organisations, prevented her from travelling to similar gatherings in Sweden and the United States" might benefit from an additional comma after war - but I'm no grammar expert.
The comma you suggest is optional; grammatically correct either way, but in my view preferably omitted. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In National prominence the claim that she "met Lenin" appears to be uncited - and should Lenin be wikilinked?
Lenin is linked in the previous line. Citation for the meeting added; Bondfield gives no details of the meeting, merely mentioning that it took place. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Minister of Labour is the claim about her "visible reluctance" supported by the two following references (110 & 111), If it is a quote rather than conjecture/opinion should it be in italics & cited?
The wording is my summation of the sources, rather than a quote. Bondfield was a signatory to the Blanesburgh report and was thus being required to introduce legislation that contradicted her personal judgement. Marquand summarises her grudging attitude towards the new legislation: her initial proposals provoked a storm of opposition within her own party and had to be replaced with a more liberal formula. I think my choice of wording is justified. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Appraisal and legacy would it be worth saying who "Williamson" is (as has been done previously with Skidelsky)?
Philip Williamson is Bondfield's ODNB biographer. This description was inadvertently removed during an earlier prose trimming exercise. I've restored it. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 36 (From Note 5) Kay, J.A. gives an error "Missing or empty |url=" message from the cite web template - should this be cite web or book, journal etc?
Refs 66 (Hull University) and 143 (London Gazette) appear to be PDFs - I have a vague memory that we should include "format=PDF" but I'm not sure if that is a requirement.
I've never heard of this as a requirement and don't remember ever doing it. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of examples on Template:Cite web but as I said it was just so,mething I've been advised to do on other articles.— Rodtalk 15:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hope these are helpful.— Rodtalk 17:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for these comments and for your continuing interest in improving this article. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support now all my quibbles have been responded to.— Rodtalk 14:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start the review proper shortly, but a few minor points about the impedimenta at the foot of the page:
References
Minor peaks, rather than a proper source review:
FN5 should be pp. 218–19 (not 219)
FNs75 & 106 may need looking at (is the pp. meant to be there?)
As lovely as it is, why is Abingdon linked in Magill's Dictionary of World Biography (and Farnham for Worley's Foundations of the British Labour Party?
Well, our US friends might wonder where these places are. They are not well known outside the UK. Brianboulton (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason Blythe, Marquand and Skidelsky are linked, but not some of the others? (We have an article for Wilson, A.N., for example)
I have now authorlinked Hamilton, Pelling and Wilson. Brianboulton (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More soonest - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Happy with the explanation: source review is all good. - SchroCat (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No other comments found on the prose. Two detailed read-throughs, with a red pen poised all the way, ready to pounch on the slightest error, found nothing in the text about which I needed to comment. Nice piece of work all round, a thoroughly interesting read and proof, if it were ever needed, that our Featured content is something for which we should feel justifiably proud. - SchroCat (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What, not even an ellipsis to sort out? I'm astonished – but thanks for reading through, and I'm glad you enjoyed the article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(I'd already covered the dots and dashes earlier!) cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...well, none actually. This was a delight to read with nothing to pick up on other than an adjustment of a ref order (which I fixed). Nice work Brian!
Support. I took part in the peer review, where such minor quibbles as I had were thoroughly dealt with. The text is clearly of FA quality, and the images have been judiciously chosen. Tim riley talk 10:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for support and earlier help with the article (inc. British Library research, invaluable). Brianboulton (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Bondfield_on_tour.jpg has an odd "conflict" tag on it - I'm not quite sure what the tagger thought the issue was, the licensing seems correct
The cartoon was published in 1898 – full publication details provided. On the face of it, it is clearly PD. Unless the tagger cares to clarify his/her reservations, I propose to take no action . Brianboulton (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just guessing (i am not fond of tagging without explanation either): The original publication was in the UK (?), ideally the image should have an additional UK copyright tag and moved to Commons (probably as Commons:template:PD-UK-unknown, when the "author is unknown and cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry").
File:BCLM-Mary_Macarthur_6b.jpg: the uploader edited the image, but was almost certainly not the original author - what is the copyright status of the original image? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of several Macarthur-related images that the uploader, RexxS, has taken from the Black Country Living Museum (this is another). I imagine that he photographed the images in the museum, cropped them and uploaded them to Wikipedia as his own work. I'm pretty certain that copying a perhaps non-free image does not make that copy PD. The photograph in the article of Mary Macarthur was certainly taken before 1921 (she died 1.1.21) and was likely published before then, but without direct information as to the images's origin we can't be sure of its copyright status. So I am removing it from the article – in any event, its relevance to the Bondfield article is fairly marginal. Should I decide to expand the Macarthur article, I will pursue the issue. Brianboulton (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Done SUPPORT after the below points were addressed. JFW | T@lk 22:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Done General: a number of primary sources is referenced, and I was hoping they could be replaced with secondary sources (e.g. Mariño-Enríquez et al 2008, Nicolaije et al 2013)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_cover_art.png){kind=link}
_screenshot_02.png){kind=link}
_screenshot_03.png){kind=link}
