Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings).

The FA director, Raul654—or his delegates, SandyGeorgia and Karanacs—determines the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating—typically at least a few weeks.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents
Shortcut:
WP:FAC

Featured content:

Featured article tools:

Toolbox

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} on the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page.
  5. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination.

Supporting and opposing

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page).
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used sparingly, because it can cause the FAC archives to exceed template limits.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
  • Use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) is discouraged, as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.

Contents

[edit] Nominations

[edit] Anniemal

Nominator(s): PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


GA since September, with a peer review not long after that. I was hoping to get some actual sales figures in, and luckily Billboard finally mentioned them this year. Some of the citations aren't online, so please let me know if you need text from the original. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. The lead (infobox) image needs alt text as per WP:ALT; it's another argument to {{Infobox Album}}. Later alt text assumes that a visually-impaired reader knows what Annie looks like, which is unlikely for the typical reader; I suggest that this problem be addressed by describing her appearance in the lead infobox image. Eubulides (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks for that. I hadn't realized they'd updated {{Infobox Album}} with that. To save anyone else the time, the other two images did also have alt text. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] George Koval

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


A short article on a spy that nobody really knew about until 2007. 'Nuff said, read and learn! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I've done a cursory copyedit, and it reads smoothly for the most part. One sentence I was scratching my head about for a while was this: "As Koval built a new life for himself in the Soviet Union, the FBI launched an investigation into his activities in the 1950s". Was the FBI investigating Koval's 1950s activities, or did the investigation take place in the 1950s? If the former, I suggest: "As Koval built a new life for himself in the Soviet Union, the FBI launched an investigation into his 1950s activities"; if the latter, there's a deeper problem because you've got "As" and "1950s" disharmoniously co-existing, and I'd suggest a complete change around: "In the 1950s, the FBI launched an investigation into Koval's activities, while he built a new life for himself in the Soviet Union" (or some such; it's still slightly awkward). —Anonymous DissidentTalk 17:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I've dropped part of the sentence entirely, as its dealt with in the earlier paragraph, and reworded. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Query No mention of his wife after his return, did she predecease him? Did they have kids? Also did he ever renounce his US citizenship? ϢereSpielChequers 05:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Otto Julius Zobel

Nominator(s): SpinningSpark 16:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because it passed GA review a year ago and has been substantially stable since. Many of the inventions of Zobel are well known to engineers of a certain age, and in some cases are still used. Yet despite his circuits appearing in numerous textbooks, engineers often do not realise that they are due to Zobel, he does not seem to have been one to shout his own praises as the likes of Marconi, Edison or Tesla would have done. He fully deserves a prominent article on Wikipedia and I would like to help make it a featured article. SpinningSpark 16:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I'll review this more in the morning, but the mood and tone of sections like Otto Julius Zobel#Transmission line simulation do not bode well. Another comment: #Heat conduction looks very isolated and pithy; I suggest merging the two sentences there contained into a different section. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 17:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I've tried to address both those points, I hope I have understood what you are driving at. I've also altered the noise cancellation title for reasons I stated on the talk page (I didn't realise you were doing a review when I wrote there). One question, are you happy with the British English spelling style? Because if not, we will need to get another editor to copyedit it as I would not trust myself to convert it properly.
    • I am going to be offline for most of the coming working week, but I will address further comments at the weekend. Please keep it on hold until I have had a chance to have a look. SpinningSpark 18:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. The two images need alt text as per WP:ALT. The signature image does have alt text, but it needs to be revised to give the text of the signature rather than be a copy of the caption. Eubulides (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Lucy poems

Nominator(s): Kafka Liz, Ottava Rima, Ceoil


Nominating on behalf of Kafka Liz, who is off wiki for a while. We nomed this article a few months back but it went down in flames for a number of reasons. It has recieved a few detailed reviews since then and benefited from several combs by all involved. Thanks to Ricardiana and Fowler&fowler especially for so much insight, time and effort. Other than that, looking forward to engaging with other editor's suggestions and comments. Ceoil (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lexington class battlecruiser

Nominator(s): —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 06:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


Four of six ships in the United States' first and only true class of battlecruisers were canceled due to the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty, though two were converted to aircraft carriers and fought in the Second World War. The article passed a WP:MILHIST A-class review back in December and a GAN in January. Any and all comments are welcome and encouraged; I do not expect this to be 100% ready because I wrote it seven months ago, before other FACs have taught me (somewhat) better prose. Thanks and cheers, —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 06:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I've made my attempts at adding alts; could you double check them? Thanks, —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 08:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for doing that. Some suggestions for further improvement, so that the alt text conforms better to WP:ALT: Remove phrases like "Painting of a" (these are duplicates of the caption, and are less important for alt text; see the 2nd example in WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples). Do not use phrases like "seven funnels (though only five can be seen from this side angle)" because this strays from describing what the reader can easily verify by viewing the image (see WP:ALT #What not to specify). Similarly, avoid phrases like "design of the Lexington's" and "proposed", as this can't easily be verified by a non-expert reader who is merely looking at the image. It might not hurt to look at those examples in WP:ALT, if you haven't already. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Big Star (band)

Nominator(s): PL290 (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


I found this article languishing a couple of months ago and it struck me as a good candidate to develop more fully. I have been working on it since that time, taking it through a GA pass and polishing it further since. In my judgement it now meets the FA criteria and I offer it for review. All comments are welcome and will be acted on promptly. PL290 (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Check the toolbox to your right, there are several disambiguation links to be fixed. Also, I see you've put in alt text, but it is incorrectly done. What you've done is simply duplicate the image caption, which is not the purpose of alt text. See Wikipedia:Alternative text for images for more information. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Done: dablinks fixed and new alt texts provided. PL290 (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments from Brandt Luke Zorn (talk · contribs) I own Jovanovic's book, and I am a big fan of Big Star and am familiar with their history. In fact, I planned in the back of my head to work on this article forever, but I've been inactive on Wikipedia for a while and in the meantime it seems you've picked it up (great work, btw). I've cleaned up a few minor typos and changed a few UK spellings to US ones. Here are some things I noticed along the way reading it (I'll keep adding to this list as I read each section):
  • "The band's musical style, influenced by British Invasion groups including The Beatles and The Kinks, as well as The Byrds, The Beach Boys and other U.S. acts, incorporated darker, nihilistic themes, foreshadowing the alternative rock of the 1980s and 1990s." Darker than what? This sentence is awkwardly constructed and should be split into two sentences.
Done: reworded. PL290 (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Chilton had enjoyed commercial success as lead singer with The Box Tops, delivering, at sixteen, the lead vocal for the #1 hit "The Letter"." Is this sentences necessary to the lead? Only one sentence is dedicated to the Box Tops in the article's main body, and the placement at the end of the first paragraph seems out of place. I'd say either remove it or at least make it the first sentence of the lead's second paragraph.
Done: I've removed it. I added it because it's notable but was never happy with the way it detracts in the Lead; having thought on, I now see that it's notable to Chilton rather than Big Star. The later mention is sufficient. PL290 (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Although Big Star disbanded in 1974, only reforming in 1993[...]" the "only reforming in 1993" is unnecessary, you go over this later in the paragraph and sticking it here is out of place.
Done: removed. PL290 (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "attention was drawn to the early material in the 1980s when R.E.M.[...]" should be "the band's discography drew attention in the 1980s when R.E.M.[...]"
Done. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "new releases" should be "reissues" (and be sure to link to it so readers understand what this means)
Done. Only the Big Star albums were reissues, however, so I've reworded it to allow for the Bell one being new. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "He was offered, but turned down as "too commercial", the role of lead vocalist for Blood, Sweat & Tears." --> "He was offered the role of lead vocalist for Blood, Sweat & Tears, but turned down as "too commercial"."
Done. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "(or Ice Water[11])" Is it really necessary to know that this was sometimes spelled slightly differently?
Done - no, not necessary, so removed. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "The four-piece band eventually chose a name" Shouldn't this be "new name"?
Done. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "other reviewers wrote that "every cut could be a single" from this "important record that should go to the top"." I looked it up and the publications that printed these quotes were Billboard (high praise from an important source!) and Cash Box. Additionally, Record World called it "one of the best albums of the year". I think that the publications should be credited in the text, and that new sentences should be devoted to mentioning the additional praise.
  • I'm surprised to find that there is virtually no explanation of the sound of each individual Big Star album. The "Musical style and influences" is a good general overview of the band's sound, but surely it's a good idea to explain the differences between each record in their individual sections?
Done. It was definitely needed. I've tried not to overdo it, as the album articles are of course where much of the detail should go eventually. PL290 (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "[...]existing copies of #1 Record from the stores again." Is the "again" needed? They hadn't been previously removed.
Done: removed. This was a slightly interesting one! The word isn't needed and the style is more encyclopedic without it. As a point of interest, perhaps it's more in British English then that "again" is commonly used in the sense not of "another time" but of a reaction or response, as a result of which the status quo ante is restored. For example, to pick something up only to put it down again; or, the music got loud and then got quiet again. Used in that sense it has a function in conveying a connection between an action or state and another that preceded it. Anyway, that's by the by and purely for interest in case that usage is new to any reading this; I do think the style is better without the word in this case. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "according to Fry (quoted by Clark) and Hummel (quoted by Jovanovic)" Why not put direct references directly after Fry's and Hummel's names instead of the parentheses?
Done. Turns out Jovanovic says both anyway, so I've removed Clark. PL290 (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Bell quit for good"; "Hummel too quit for good": I'd suggest removing the "for good" part, as it's not only repetitive but very informally worded. The mention of Hummel's quitting is far enough away from Bell's quitting that I think the "too" is also unnecessary.
Done. PL290 (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Radio City was released in January 1974. Like #1 Record it received excellent reviews, critics noting that "the sound is stimulating, the musicianship superb" on what was "a collection of excellent material" and affirming that Alex Chilton had "now emerged as a major talent"." I suggest changing this to "Radio City was released in January 1974, and like #1 Record it received excellent reviews.", and then spend a few sentences detailing those quotes and the publications they came from.
  • "sales of Radio City were prevented"; this makes it sound as though Colombia deliberately suppressed every copy of Big Star's album, which is not true; Radio City actually sold around 20,000 copies, much better than #1 Record had performed but still not great. Perhaps "sales of Radio City were minimal"? Additionally, the information I mentioned above (from the same page you already cite) is important.
Done. PL290 (talk)
  • "(The phrase "sister lovers" was[...]" No need for this to be in parentheses. Also, why not briefly explain how #1 Record and Radio City were named in their own sections?
Done.PL290 (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "The first three Big Star albums are included in Rolling Stone magazine’s 500 Greatest Albums of All Time." "September Gurls" was included in Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs list, a fact which should be noted in that sentence.
Done. Also "Thirteen". PL290 (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Posthumous popularity, critical favor, and influence" is a long title, and I'm not sure I like parts of it. For example, "Posthumous" seems a strange choice, given not only that Big Star is a band and not a person but also that they became influential before reuniting, so it's not really posthumous at all. "Popularity" might be a bit misleading as they're still only a cult act. Perhaps "Legacy and influence" is more succinct?
Done. I've also made it a subsection of "First era" since its the latter's legacy and influence we're talking about. PL290 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that logically, the "Covers and references" section should be a subsection of the "Posthumous popularity, critical favor, and influence" section. They cover similar ground, so it seems strange to see them separated by unrelated sections.
Bearing in mind my response to your previous comment, I've instead made it a subsection of "First era", located immediately after what is now "Legacy and influence". Does that all seem OK, or would you suggest something different from what I've done? PL290 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "In 1998, #1 Record's "In the Street" was used as the theme song for the sitcom That '70s Show;[10] in 1999, a new version titled "That '70s Song" was recorded by Cheap Trick for the show.[10][43] This and Big Star's own "September Gurls" were included on the 1999 album That '70s Album (Rockin') released by the television program's producers.[44]" Logically, this should be in the "Covers and references" section.
Done. PL290 (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The "Second era: 1993 to present" section in general is very choppy, with short paragraphs. It really should be reworked into a better organized section.
This was largely taken care of when more material was moved here from two other points. I've taken out a further paragraph break; are you happy with the result? PL290 (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Bogdanov et al. reserve "snarl" for another #1 Record song, "Mod Lang"" "Mod Lang" is on Radio City, not #1 Record.
Done. (Doh!) PL290 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Regarding the "Musical style and influences" section: I think that it would make most sense if the first paragraph came after the second, and if the third paragraph were incorporated into the "Second era: 1993 to present" section.
Done. PL290 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In the audio sample boxes, as the quotes about each song are used later, it's a better idea to format the descriptions more in the style of articles like R.E.M.
Done: I've formatted the descriptions in the style used by R.E.M.; I have retained a few parts of the quotes as they're suitably descriptive without getting POV; does this seem an acceptable result or would you suggest it's better to completely eliminate any quotations from the descriptions? PL290 (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Stringfellow is also known for his work with R.E.M." Not sure about ending a sentence with the last period of R.E.M.'s name... Perhaps reword this or slide the information into an earlier sentence?
Done. PL290 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I noticed throughout that there is very little insight from members of the band and/or people who worked with the band. Without going into too much detail, which should of course be reserved for the individual articles about the band's releases, it would be nice to include some quotes from Big Star-related people.
Done. PL290 (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • You're probably aware of this, but there is a 33⅓ book devoted to Radio City. While it might not be needed for this article (33⅓ books are usually used in the article for the album they're about and not so much in the band article, although there are exceptions), it might be good to lighten the dependence on Jovanovic as a source. And it's certainly worth looking into.
Noted - I have in mind to get that, and it will be excellent when it comes to developing the Radio City article further. Unfortunately I don't have a copy yet but will hope to address all review points without recourse to that. PL290 (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

--Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Done; thanks. Images have alt text, but it needs work to satisfy the WP:ALT guidelines. The alt text is simply a copy of the caption. But alt text should not be a copy of the caption; it has quite a different function from the caption, and it's quite rare for the same text to be good for both. Please read WP:ALT (particularly WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Examples) and then have a go at writing good alt text. Eubulides (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Done: new alt texts provided. PL290 (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, much better. But these proper names shouldn't be in the alt text. The average reader doesn't know what these people look like, so saying (in effect) "It looks like Stringfellow" in the alt text won't help them. Can you please remove the proper names from the alt text? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Done: proper names removed from alt texts. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Quick comment Could you move the line "in its original era 1971–74, a "seminal body of work that never stopped...in all of rock & roll" to last paragraph of the lead? It seems more appropriate there, as that is the paragraph where you talk in detail about the group's legacy. Otherwise, it seems a little POV to tell the reader how influential Big Star were before you even lay out the basic facts about them.
Actually that sentence was intentionally prominent; not as POV, which I hope it avoids by being composed of cited quotes, but to establish notability in first sentence per WP:LEAD. In view of this, would you be happy to leave that sentence where it is? PL290 (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The article could also do with a MoS polish. For eg: I see Rolling Stone linked and unitalicised twice in the same section. indopug (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I have been attempting to adhere to MoS as I work on the article but had missed italicising Rolling Stone for some reason; that's now fixed. I'll go over it again at the end of other editing to check for any other MoS issues. PL290 (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 18:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


This GA has gone through a Peer Review with Brianboulton (talk · contribs)... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 18:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment.

  • Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.
  • I could not decipher the Statistical note section; is there some clearer way to format that? Without understanding what's going on I have a vague suspicion that this bit is WP:OR.

Eubulides (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

    • I think YM was driven to this formulation by the demands of unbending peer reviewers (no names mentioned), who objected to the elongated reference strings that disfigured the text in earlier versions of this article. The precedent is Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, recently promoted FA, in which this format is used. Brianboulton (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    • No problem with that, but if YM could just explain here the function of it, it would aid the comprehension of us FA reviewers. SGGH ping! 09:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
It just moves the big group ref to its own section so that it isn't in the main text. N-1 links to the bottom and then under the N1 there are 30 odd refs YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I removed the first pic as it won't get past Jappalang anyway. Secondly, does the second one need an alt, because the layout of graph is already in the caption anyway as the caption is needed to explain what the data is already. The last part is not OR. Ring batted at No 9/10/11 most of the time and this can be seen by looking at the data sheet for each match and seeing that he is one of the last three names in most of them YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Described the graph YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I tweaked the description. Eubulides (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Effects of Hurricane Georges in Louisiana

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets all FA criteria. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks, the images have alt text, but the alt text needs work. The currently alt text is just a copy of the captions. But alt text has a different function from the caption, and typically the alt text and caption should overlap little, if at all. Please see WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples and then give it another go. Eubulides (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I've improved them properly now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, much better, but still needs work. The alt text too often give details like "Hurricane Georges" or "Chandelur Islands" that cannot be verified merely by looking at the image (unless you are an expert). An ordinary reader won't look at the Chandelur Islands photo and say "that looks like the Chandelur Islands". I reworded the first few; can you please reword the last two? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Why are the damages and deaths repeated twice in the lead, in the first sentence of each paragraph? Also, for the images in the Impact section, can you find a way (might involve playing around with the template itself), to use {{Double image stack}} as used in Raymore Drive? The way those two small images are positioned looks awkward. I'll probably add more comments, as I'm combing the article over to use it as a model for writing an effects article myself. Maxim(talk) 12:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the double image link, I didn't know that existed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think the prose needs more work. The year of the hurricane needs to be specfied at the beginning of the article (not just in the infobox); in the Preparations section third paragraph there are multiple repetitions of evacuate/evacuated/evacuation – nine in all; "Record-breaking" needs a hyphen; "declared disaster declarations" is not good prose. These are examples of points needing attention; in addition there are numerous no-break space omissions throughout the article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Done these examples. Will try to copyedit the article more thoroughly tomorrow. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Copyedited the entire article. I'll proofread it tomorrow. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Bartered Bride

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Huntington's disease

Nominator(s): Garrondo (talk) and L∴V (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is a great medical article covering all the main topics of this important disease. The article has been greatly improved in the last year and I believe it deserves to be considered a FA. Its strongest point is possibly the high quality of the sources used, but prose has also been extensively reviewed by several editors. Garrondo (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Materialscientist

  • Figure captions: neuron pictures need length scales or length indication in the caption (image width ...). File:BrainCaudatePutamen.svg: "shown in pink" is misleading because there is also purple and those two are hard to distinguish. Meanwhile, the figure description page mentions purple and orange. I would unify the description and also change the pink color on the picture itself into some other. File:Aspiration-pneumonia-002.jpg: caption should start something like "A tomography image of xxx showing aspiration pneumonia, a common cause of death in HD" where xxx is lung or whatever (too many abbreviations, and you can't show an illness pneumonea on a picture). Should it be "from HD" instead of "in HD" ? That caption needs expansion explaining what is actually shown. Materialscientist (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not understand what do you mean with length scales.--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You are completely right on your point of the putamen image. However I do not know how to modify svg images. For the moment I have changed caption to "shown in purple and orange".--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Lung image: caption changed. I have left "in HD", since it is not directly produced by the disease: the disease produces swallowing problems that may or may not lead to pneumonia.--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Length scale is a calibrated bar on the image with a tag, such as "0.5 mm". If its too much work to add it, just say (image width 2 mm) in caption, or so. I can edit File:BrainCaudatePutamen.svg and change color as you wish, but can not save the result in SVG. Can save in PNG (or other formats), which as I understand is similar to SVG. Materialscientist (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The scale comment will be hard to address but I'll try to contact the authors of the image. Regarding the image change I suppose there will be no problem to change the pink part to the same color of the brain and leave only coloured the striatum, and then save it in png; nevertheless right now I believe it is clear which part is the striatum.--Garrondo (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I've emailed Dr FinkBeiner, he has been very helpful and prompt with the image, but may take a few days ... L∴V 22:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Answer is it's 1 micron / pixel - the nucleus of central neuron is about 15 microns, so maybe a 100 micron scale at the side / bottom , and whether to call them microns, micrometers, or µm ? L∴V 17:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, colors are fine now, and I would keep them for consistency with the original figure file explanation. Pneumonia is not explained in the caption (non-specialist like me would never guess where to look at that image). Materialscientist (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
What kind of explanation are you thinking of? I am no expert either so we could maybe ask in the medicine project for a better explanation of the image.--Garrondo (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Where and what is "pneumonia" (like "fine gray grains in the center indicate ..") BTW, the image is proposed for deletion, which needs to be addressed. Materialscientist (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Since it is proposed for deletion, in the GA proccess reviewer said it did not add much, and it is hard to address your comments I have decided to eliminate it as the simpler solution.--Garrondo (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • References: Some author names start with initials, some with last names, some with 1st names. Please unify. Materialscientist (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to change them.--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I think I have given all author names the same format.--Garrondo (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the comma, separating the first and last name, varies. Materialscientist (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe it is fixed now. Give me specific examples if otherwise please.--Garrondo (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Style: Hungtintin is either capitalized or not.
It was decided in talk page of the article to capitalize the gene but not the protein.--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Then this should be unified with Huntingtin article. Materialscientist (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Done.--Garrondo (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • While only briefing checking the article to make sure the significance of the Venezuelan work was included (it was!), I found multiple instances of strange use of semicolons, and a copyedit problem, suggesting a copyedit needed (a foundation cannot have a daughter). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you knew of the Venezuelan project and that it is covered acceptably! I think I have addressed the semicolons, further copyediting still requred, I suspect. L∴V 00:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I have made the Nancy Wexler / Foundation a little less ambiguous. L∴V 18:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    WP:ALT says "useful", doesn't say "need". Materialscientist (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    WP:ALT says "Every visible image should have alt text, unless the image is used only for visual formatting or decoration." The 9 images specified in the source of Huntington's disease are all functional, as they all link to their image pages, so they are not present only for visual formatting or decoration and they all need alt text. The motivation for this is accessibility to the visually-impaired; please see WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Eubulides (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I've added alt text, phew that's a tricky one ! L∴V 00:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that was quick! You missed the image in History, though. Eubulides (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Oops missed adding the alt= tag! L∴V 15:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Drive-by comment ...7 per 100,000 people, but is relatively lower in the rest of the world, e.g. 1 per 1,000,000 people of Asian and African descent - better is ...70 per 1,000,000 people, but is lower in the rest of the world, e.g. 1 per 1,000,000 people of Asian and African descent - this makes the difference clearer, and "relatively" is unneeded since you are talking rates, not absolute numbers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, have applied. L∴V 18:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. In the references, you have a mixture of dmy, mdy and ymd date formats (current refs #89 & #96, for example). You should use one style consistently throughout the references for dates of publication and access. Where references have a PMID, the day and month of publication add no real information. Have you considered simply using year of publication for those cases? --RexxS (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I have eliminated the month parameter in those journal references where it appeared. I have also fixed a few other references. I believe its done.--Garrondo (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Adrian Cole (RAAF officer)

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


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

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

  • He seems to have transferred to the RAAF and then become one of its original officers when it was formed. How did he transfer to it if it didn't yet exist?
  • "Though he later recorded that it involved "twenty months' hard work, without pay ... with loads of scurrilous and other criticism", provision of the RAAF's radio facilities and technicians was considered a boon for contestants." I can't quite figure out what this sentence is trying to say.
  • Reworded these two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "In the event, he had to make do..." This reads as quite colloquial to me, but I wouldn't mind hearing other opinions.
  • For me it does the job, but more than happy to listen to suggestions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • First I've heard of Who's Who being a questionable source, and I've used it in most of my recent A/FA-Class noms. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • References look okay otherwise.
  • Images not reviewed. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 05:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review, Steve, and the copyedits - while I tweaked a couple, I think they've certainly improved the prose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: I believe that this article meets the criteria of a Featured Article. I have the following comments:
    • there are no disambig links and no reference errors using the tools (good work)
    • there is some overlink (e.g. World War I) that possibly needs to be fixed
    • dashes seem consistent with WP:DASH - I fixed any hyphens I could find that needed to be endashes;
    • there is possibly an issue in relation to Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Numbers_as_figures_or_words as some numbers greater than 10 are spelt when maybe they should use numbers instead.

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

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

[edit] Ashton-under-Lyne

Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe this article on one of Greater Manchester's mill towns complies with the FA criteria. It is comprehensive, well sourced, and – having recently undergone a copyedit – hopefully well written. Thanks in advance to those who take the time to review the article. Nev1 (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Images need all have good alt text as per WP:ALT. Thanks! Eubulides (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
All of the images have alt text, except the one in the infobox, which needs an update to be made to {{Infobox UK place}}.[1] --Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • All images have alt text. The only one which might not work is the image in the infobox. The infobox is currently being upgraded to alt text and should be working soon; I've tried to add a workaround, but I'm not sure if it will work. Nev1 (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)This is being worked on. It's in a queue for other upgrades to be made to the template, so I would hope reviewers can temporarily WP:IAR whilst it is implimented over the next few weeks. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, sorry, I looked at the first one, saw it lacked it, and assumed the rest lacked it. Thanks for doing all that alt text: it's really good. My sincere apologies for the false alarm; I must try to be more careful. I'll mark off this part of the discussion with hat/hab to avoid distraction.
  • That workaround works just fine.
Eubulides (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Query - Sorry if this is an odd question, but are you the author of Nevell works used to write the article? --Laser brain (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Not an odd question at all, and no I am not. Nev1 (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - this is good, and I'm leaning toward support. Some fit and finish is needed, as follows:
    • "it was probably used as an administrative boundary and dates from the 8th or 9th centuries" 8th or 9th "century" OK?
    • "Ashton Old Hall was a manor house and the seat of the Assheton family, the administrative centre of the manor." Strangely worded—to me, it reads like the family was the administrative centre, but you presumably mean the Hall.
    • "The manor remained in the hands of the Ashton family until 1514 ..." Until now you've been referring to them as "Assheton" and haven't explained the leap to "Ashton".
    • "Domestic fustian and woollen weaving has ..." I would have used "have", unless I am misreading the sentence.
    • "There was a cholera outbreak in Ashton-under-Lyne in 1832, caused by a poor supply of fresh water and dwellings without adequate drainage." Switch this around to make active and avoid the awkward "there was": "A poor supply of fresh water and dwellings without adequate drainage caused a cholera outbreak in Ashton-under-Lyne in 1832."
    • That compass table is awful... 4 different fonts including the header? And why the period after the header?
    • Please check all instances where you begin a sentence with "In <year>". Some have commas, some don't. I fixed a couple but there may be more.
    • "Ashton Market Hall has undergone a £15M restoration ..." Why not just AMH "underwent"?
    • GCSE...? Spell out acronyms the first time they're used, and only include the abbreviation if re-used.

--Laser brain (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

    • Nev1 and I have made edits to this effect as shown in this diff. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I think we've dealt with everything apart from the compass table, and there's not much we can do about that as it's a template (the alternative template isn't any better IMO). Nev1 (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if an upgrade was made avaliable, but I suppose that's a matter outside of this FAC. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the publisher field for refs 125 and 126 (there was a typo so the field didn't appear); all are now using template:citation; and I've sorted out sources 3 and 51 as suggested. [2] I've not got a page number for the gazetteer though, so the reference looks a bit odd. I've replaced runtrackdir.com with the sports club's website. Nev1 (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fight Club (film)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment I don't think the See also section helps much. Readers are left to wonder why the films mentioned are similar to Fight club. Is it the themes, the directing, etc. I would vote to remove that section. Remember (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, there is a source, albeit not a good one. Does allmovies have regular editors and vetted content? I'd like for there to be some way to include a list like this. --Laser brain (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
First, to respond to Flappychappy, I've tried to improve the plot summary a little bit more, but I was trying to keep it fairly condensed and to avoid getting into the whole anti-consumerist message. It's the kind of film where a lot could be mentioned to continue improving a reader's understanding of the film, but at some point, it's too much. For the "See also" section, it is an admittedly new kind of addition, partially because a side goal of mine is to phase out Allmovie as an external link, and the stand-out benefit of that website were the "similar works" sections. I could not find how the website lists similar works, but my theory is that they cross-reference the details from the left column of a film's page (keywords, themes, tones, etc). Allmovie is also "powered by" AMG Data Solutions and published by Macrovision Corporation, which seems fairly credible. No end user involvement like IMDb might have. When I compared similar works to Fight Club, I could recognize how they relate. Since Allmovie doesn't explicitly explain why they're similar, it would be original research to deduce a conclusion. Laserbrain, a better use of the "See also" section may be stemmed in academic sources, like how I listed "Nazi Next Door films" at Apt Pupil (film)#See also using one. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

The everyman theme is explained in depth in the "Themes" section; it is too much extrapolation in the lead section to explain the term "everyman". Your second suggestion contradicts Laserbrain's suggestion -- without mentioning "to hire one", it sounds like the studio wanted multiple directors. I broke up the particularly long sentence. "Filmmakers" is used as a general grouping of people who produce the film, since it's not always clear who did what. If there is an alternate way to use active verbs, I'm open to suggestions. :) I think "perceived" was the word choice in the citation, but I replaced it with "anticipated". I also think "the film" is needed because the related noun is succeeded by two nouns ("expectations" and "box office"); clarifying re-focuses the noun usage. Let me know if you disagree. "Debut" is synonymous with "premiere". Thanks for pointing out the "Carter" surname; thankfully, only two instances to fix. I ask you to look at at least one other section since the lead section tends to be more of a challenge adequately summarizing the entire article body. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Your various rephrasings in the lead have lagely dealt with the issues I raised, although I think "everyman" should be in quotes, to indicate that it is a figure of speech. I also have some problem with the clarity of the sentence "Fincher intended for the film's violence in the fight clubs to serve as a metaphor for feeling based on the generation's conflict" – I'm not clear what "feeling" means here. However, I am striking my oppose, and will try to get to the rest of the prose in the next few days. I have looked at the Plot section and have a few suggestions:-
  • "disrupts his relief": slightly odd phrasing – and could there be a brief indication of how she does this?
  • "...Tyler disappears from the narrator's life." Since he reappears, it might be best to end the sentence "Tyler disappears."
  • "When a member of Project Mayhem dies, the narrator tries to shut down the project by following evidence of Tyler's national travels." It is clear how, by following evidence of Tyler's travels, the narrator can shut down the project.
  • Suggest a slight rephrasing to avoid the "...Tyler. Tyler..." combination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs) 07:35, July 18, 2009
I made changes per your suggestions. Please let me know if the "Tyler" combination is ideally addressed now... I could not see a very easy solution to it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I've made a small change myself (see edit summary) Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • Here; Fincher intended for the film's violence in the fight clubs to serve as a metaphor for feeling based on the generation's conflict. - what does "feeling based on the generation's conflict" mean?
  • The director implemented homoerotic overtones from Palahniuk's novel - "implemented" doesn't seem to be quite the right word.
  • Here; Studio executives were not receptive to the film - how about "were not impressed by" or even "did not like"?
  • Another impostor, Marla Singer (Helena Bonham Carter), disrupts his relief - doesn't sound idiomatic to me.
  • There is a possible fused participle here, Their conversation about materialism leads to Tyler inviting the narrator to stay at his place
  • Here They have new fights outside the bar - "new fights"?
"fight leisurely" still doesn't sound right.
  • This lacks logical flow, When the narrator ignores a phone call from Marla, who has overdosed on pills, Tyler rescues her from her flat
  • The narrator complains to Tyler about not being involved in the organization - it is not clear who is not involved.
  • This lacks logical flow, When a member of Project Mayhem dies, the narrator tries to shut down the project by following evidence of Tyler's national travels.
  • "Police....its"?
  • This sounds odd; The illusion of Tyler collapses with an exit wound to the back of his head
  • "Afterward" -> "Afterwards"
  • the reader discouraged an adaptation of the material - "adapting it"?
  • McCormick then forwarded the proof to producers Lawrence Bender and Art Linson, who also rejected adapting it, but producers Josh Donen and Ross Bell saw potential and expressed an interest in adapting Fight Club
  • This lacks logical flow, The producers cut out sections to reduce the running time and to record the dialogue.
  • Here; finding Fight Club similar to the 1967 film The Graduate, which Henry adapted. - it should be "had adapted".
  • This sentence is clumsy, A new screenwriter, Jim Uhls, lobbied Donen and Bell to be hired to adapt the screenplay, and the producers chose Uhls over Henry.
  • Here; Bell explored four candidates to hire as director - I don't think people can be "explored".
  • since he had an unpleasant experience -> "because he had", there is another misused "since" later on.
  • There is something missing here, Producer Art Linson, who boarded the project late, met with another candidate, Brad Pitt, for the same role.
  • Since Linson was the senior producer of the two, the studio sought Pitt over Crowe. - "sought Pitt over Crowe"?
  • Here, The studio signed Pitt with a $17.5 million salary. - "and offered him"?
  • Pitt sought a new film after the failure of his 1998 film Meet Joe Black, - in this context "was looking for" would be better.
  • As much as I like Matt Damon how would he "increase awareness of the film"?
  • it also considered Sean Penn as a possibility - "as a possibility" is redundant.
  • Fincher instead considered Edward Norton a candidate for the role based on the actor's performance in the 1996 film The People vs. Larry Flynt. - needs a comma.
  • This sounds odd; Pitt shaped the cosmetics of his role.
  • Here; Fincher and Uhls revised the script for six to seven months, by 1997 having a third draft that reordered the story and left out several major elements. - "and by 1997 had.."?
  • Here; Palahniuk recalled how the writers contended if film audiences would believe the plot twist from the novel. - is "contended" the right verb?
  • The section on napalm seems completely out of place and breaks the logical flow of the paragraph.
  • the budget was adjusted to $50 million - "increased to"?
  • Here; and in the course of filming - would "but" be better than "and"?
  • There is some overlinking as with "having the wind knocked out of themselves."
  • What on earth is "straight water"?
How about "neat" or "pure" or "unadulterated"?
  • Here; The director sought various approaches to the lighting setups in the film's scenes - "in the film's scenes" is redundant.
  • What's a "practical" location?
  • Do prosthetics really depict? Yes, on refection they do. Graham.
  • "On a microscope level" - should be "at a microscopic level".
  • Here; The final scene of demolishing the credit card office buildings - should be "of the demolition of".
  • I am not sure what "stepped all over means" in this context.
I still don't know if this is literal, but I can live with it. Graham
  • Here, David Fincher supervised the composition of the DVD packaging, being one of the first directors to participate in a film's transition to home media - "and was one of the" would be better.
  • More overlinking: "word of mouth", "cult film", and Palahniuk linked right at the end of the article.The film's success also heightened the profile of the novel's author Chuck Palahniuk to global renown. Graham Colm Talk 13:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the list of items to fix! It's rather shocking to find out what still can be fixed, even after all the times I've read through the article. :P Some notes: "Afterward" and "Afterwards" are both acceptable. "Practical location" means a preexisting location, not one built on a soundstage; it's common terminology in the film industry. Does it need to be defined? As for prostheses, I was not sure of the best verb to use here; "depicting" seemed closest but admittedly not spot-on. Suggestions in this context? I've fixed the other items to reduce redundancy and improve flow. If there are any other items to be found, please let me know! —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
To follow up, for the "stepped" item, this is the sentence from the citation: "When we processed it, we stretched the contrast to make it kind of ugly, a little bit of underexposure, a little bit resilvering, and using new high-contrast print socks and stepping all over it so it has a dirty patina." It's technical jargon, so I'm not clear about how else to explain it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I am happy to add my support now, given the caveat above. Graham Colm Talk 18:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: The article prose is amazing, as well as the sources, so I have to say I support this. One issue, though - in themes, it states "Edward Norton said," [...] followed by "Brad Pitt said,"[...] A bit redundant and can be reworded. Other than that, excellent work. The Flash {talk} 00:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
D'oh! I actually reworded these quotes to start with "said" to make it more basic. :) Do you think "Pitt explained" would be a better way to word it? Appreciate the support, and if you see anything else amiss, feel free to share or fix yourself! —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds better. The Flash {talk} 00:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Crayola

Nominator(s): Dougie WII (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel it's a quite comprehensive article about a very well known subject. If there are any suggestions to improve it before becoming a featured article, I'd be all too happy to try to comply. Thank you. Dougie WII (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: This seems very sparse to me for a featured article on such a major company and recognizable brand. Are there really no sources available to expand it to something more closely resembling, for example, BAE Systems? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm all for expanding it with relevant information, but this company makes crayons and pencils and stuff, not supersonic jets or nuclear weapons, so I don't think that comparison is really fair. I am trying to read as much as I can and add things that are notable. -- Dougie WII (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Oppose I agree with Steve. The (only?) manufacturing plant is barely mentioned in passing, and surely even for a private company there must be some information - how many employees? any indication of profitability - Wall Street Journal perhaps?. The brand is claimed to be global, but I don't see anything much that's not US-based. Some of the web refs have no publisher or retrieval date, or are of dubious reliability - Amazon for instance. Prose needs some work too - did I see isn't? Images lack alt text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment There are three manufacturing plants listed in the infobox. There's not much else to say about them other than they exist, but if they should be in the main text, I can add them. I'll take a look at the refs and try to put in as much info as possible. Is the word "isn't" banned?
  • As a regular FAC contributor, I dislike opposing nominations because I know how hard it is to get articles through. However, Crayola does not appear to meet criteria 1b and 1c, and the nominator's reply gives little reason to assume that it will do so in the limited time available. I therefore reluctantly oppose the nominationn now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment -- The number of employees is listed in the infobox, should all the information in the infobox be repeated in the prose section? -- Dougie WII (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Another Comment/Question -- Regarding links to stores such as Amazon, they are being used solely to show that a product exists and is currently being sold. Since Crayola doesn't have any retail catalog, how else could such information be reliably sourced if such stores are not considered reliable sources for this limited purpose? -- Dougie WII (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for adding some alt text, but I'm afraid that it still needs work. For example the alt text for the lead image is "Crayola's corporate logo" but this conveys little useful information to a visually-impaired reader. It should be something like "Wide orange oval logo with green "Crayola" above a rainbow smile". Please see WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples and then rewrite the alt text in the light of that discussion. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, 1b and 1c. You've got a great start! However, this is a long way off—it is neither comprehensive nor well-researched. For a start, hit the library and search major services such as EBSCOHost for major articles on this historically important company (ask a research librarian to help). This is perhaps a solid B-class article, but not further. --Laser brain (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question -- Living in New York City, I have access to great libraries, but what is it to look for, can you be more specific? There's plenty of information I've read on the web, but I guess it's a bit difficult to separate the crufty stuff from some valuable thing to be noted in a good article. -- Dougie WII (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • General comment -- please don't interpret my responses and questions as hostile, this is the first time I've done something like this. I've tried to put this particular article up for peer review and good article status before, but without much feedback. Although this might (actually probably) won't pass FA muster now, I'm getting more feedback here in less than a day than I have ever before after weeks. Thank you all! -- Dougie WII (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Another general comment -- OK, now I'm being criticized for making too many edits to the page here Talk:Crayola#Too_many_edits.3F, as I try to edit it to make it conform to the standards and ideas stated here about improving the page... Am I doing something wrong? Should I just abandon work on this article? -- Dougie WII (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The comment you reference is baseless and rather ludicrous, in my opinion. You are doing fine! Your responses here have been courteous and reasonable. I hope you don't abandon the article—it needs the careful attention you seem willing to give it. I would, however, recommend withdrawing this nomination to work on the article. In answer to your question above, you should definitely seek the help of a research librarian. They can help find the right places to look for articles and books about companies. --Laser brain (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - sorry, it's an interesting article but not of FA standard yet. I agree with Laser Brain, please do not give up, this is exactly the kind of subject that Wikipedia excels at. Graham Colm Talk 21:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I wouldn't have a problem closing this early if my questions are answered, most importantly does every fact noted in the infobox need to reiterated in the text? So many people here criticized the article for not providing information that was provided in the infobox. -- Dougie WII (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - 1b and 1c (comprehensiveness and sourcing). These are the same issues I raised at the peer review. Again, I urge you to read the dispatches here and here about how to do research. Awadewit (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - sources are lacking. Most lack a publisher, many lack a last access date, a number are totally unreliable. (Examples: http://www.hotelfun4kids.com/hotelproducts/craft/crayon.htm#CRAYONS, http://listoftheday.blogspot.com/2009/05/20-most-recognizable-scents-in-world.html, http://www.irememberjfk.com/mt/2008/09/crayola_crayons.php, http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/3644). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Volcano (South Park)

Nominator(s): Music26/11 and Hunter Kahn (contribs)


I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets all of the criteria. Hunter Kahn and I have been working on this article the past few weeks/months, and now feel that it is ready for FAC.--Music26/11 12:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Done.--Music26/11 15:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Done; thanks. Images both need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I did this but please check it; I don't normally do alt texts so I want to make sure I did it right. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for looking into it. The alt text still needs work, I'm afraid, as it is mostly not about appearance. It needs to be reworded to talk only about appearance and to discuss only material that can easily be verified by someone who can see the image but does not know the area. Please see WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples (particularly the 3rd and 4th examples). Eubulides (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I've edited the alt-text, please check if it's ok now. Orichalcon (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Better, but it still needs work. The alt text makes claims about the visual appearance that a non-expert cannot immediately verify by simply looking at the image. For example, a non-expert won't know the names of the characters, or of the co-creators. Alt text should just describe the visual appearance; it shouldn't explain the image. Here's another way to think about it: if there's any repetition between the alt text and the caption, then something is amiss, as the alt text should talk only about visual appearance, and the caption should assume that you can see the image and shouldn't waste its time on visual appearance. Again, please see WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples. Eubulides (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
This is quite funny actually, anyone who passes by takes a stab at trying to improve the alt text. What do you think about the changes I've made.--Music26/11 19:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, much better. I tweaked it a bit more to follow the guideline more closely. Eubulides (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just a few quick ref and format fixes before I can support this. Amazing work, but:
  1. The profile caption should be sourced.
  2. As I understand this is common knowledge to any South Park episode, but could you find a source for the TV-M rating?
    • Done, added to Reception section. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. First paragraph in production seems clumped.
    • I broke it apart. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Other than those, fantastic work! I can tell you're attempting to get Season 1 all Featured, likely to make a Featured topic, so good luck with it. The Flash {talk} 03:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Everything checks out, nice work. Support. The Flash {talk} 04:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment The infobox is very very long. I suggest making the episode chronology like [Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo]] and cutting down the size of the caption. The plot summary section is also a little long in my opinion; can it be cut down to three tight paragraphs by removing details like "Unlike Stan, Kenny is able to shoot animals, and this impresses Jimbo" or the bit about the education film? (not seen the episode yet, but stuff like this doesn't seem particularly important to me to the overall plot) indopug (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I've fixed the infobox concern, I think. The stuff about the Duck and Cover film could be removed from the plot section, but the reason it is mentioned in the section is because the film is discussed in the cultural references section.--Music26/11 12:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • One possible option would be to either shorten the "Duck and Cover" mention down to a very brief mention, or just remove it altogether, but then go into more detail about it and how it is used in the episode under Cultural References. What do you think, Music? — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Whatever Indopug prefers.--Music26/11 15:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"Parker and Stone felt the early animation of the series had strongly improved with the "Volcano" episode" seems a little awkward, especially since "Parker and Stone strongly disliked." is just before it. Not sure how to fix it.

  • I tried a change. What do you think? — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

""Volcano" and the episodes "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" and "Weight Gain 4000" received an average 1.4 Nielsen Rating, which translates to slightly more than 1 million viewers." Seems kinda random to mention those other two episodes. Why those two, and not other ones? Why mention any others? Probably based on the source, which I can't read.

  • The reason for this is there was no source that I could find for the ratings of this individual episode, but I did find one saying these three episodes averaged a 1.4 rating. I see what you mean, though, so to avoid confusion I just dropped the 1.4 rating and the referenencs to the other episodes, and said it was seen by approximately 1 million people. Better? — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest mixing up "Volcano" and "the episode" a bit more with "its" in the lead. Maybe further down too, but I haven't read that far yet.

  • I tried to switch it up a bit. — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"nuclear weapon attack." might be better as "nuclear attack." Not sure.

I think it would be good to start the Plot section with "At the start of the episode, Stan's Uncle Jimbo..."

  • I don't really feel strongly one way or the other, so I added it in. — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"Jimbo explains to the boys how they should hunt." Maybe "Jimbo explains to the boys how to hunt."

"When they see a creature" Do they do this repeatedly with different animals, or can you say "they see a rabbit" or whatever?

  • It is multiple creatures. I tried rewording it to make that more clear. — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"Stan proves not to have the proper temperament to enjoy hunting" Mabye "Stan doesn't have the proper temperament for hunting"

"and this impresses Jimbo" How about "impressing Jimbo"

"honorary nephew, which upsets Stan" Mabye "honorary nephew, upsetting Stan"

"As the boys are skeptical, Cartman then decides" Mabye "The boys are skeptical, so Cartman decides"

"scare them" twice is repetitive.

  • Reworded. — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"the others start shooting at him" Who are the others?

"remove his costume." "remove the costume." might be better, not sure.

"some of the South Park residents dig a trench under Randy's guidance to divert the lava" Maybe "under Randy's guidance some of the South Park residents dig a trench to divert the lava" Not sure if that's better.

  • I tried a new wording. — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"the hunting group members try to flee only to find themselves trapped" -> "the hunting group tries to flee but find themselves trapped"

"Jimbo apologizes to the boys for their seemingly imminent deaths" aren't they safe at this point?

  • No. They are trapped on the other side of the trench... — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That's it for now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks! — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Inauguration of Barack Obama

Nominator(s): Lwalt, Aaron charles, TonyTheTiger


I am nominating this for featured article because I would find it hard to believe that with all the improvements to this article that there would not be consensus that it is among the finest on wikipedia. Although I started the article and undertook the GAC nomination myself, the article is hardly my work anymore. Before GAC the other two main editors listed here did heroic work while it was one of the highest trafficked articles on wikipedia in January. More recently they have done incredible work responding to concerns in prior FACs and PRs. I think this is ready now.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment.
  • Fixed; thanks. The infobox has a caption but no image? Surely an image is intended there.
  • The alt text needs work. For example, for File:ObamaInaugurationCapitolPreparation.jpg the alt text "Inauguration preparations at the United States Capitol" is weak because (1) it nearly duplicates the caption, and (2) it says little about the appearance of the image. Better would be "U.S. Capitol at dusk, mostly darkened but with dome floodlit from within. Just below it is a lit area with several dark figures.". Please see WP:ALT #What to specify and WP:ALT #What not to specify.
Eubulides (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pretty much all of the alt text has a problem. Much of it simply duplicates the captions, which isn't helpful to the visually impaired. Also, the newly-added image lacks alt text. Eubulides (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I have done what I can. My co-authors are better copyeditors than I. If you have further concerns I will attempt to address them if they don't do so first.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It's much better, but I'm afraid that it still needs work. Too often, the alt text explains the image rather than describes it. If there's repetition between the alt text and the caption, that's a sign that there's something amiss: the alt text should talk only about visual appearance, whereas the caption should assume that you can see the image (or the alt text) and should not repeat what is already obvious about visual appearance. Also, alt text should not presume expertise on the subject: it should be immediately verifiable by a reader new to the topic. (For more on this please see WP:ALT #What not to specify.) For example, the lead image's alt text is currently "Barack Obama holds his right hand in the air as he and Michelle Obama both smile toward Chief Justice Roberts whose back is to the camera during the oath of office of the President of the United States." (my italics). Only the italicized part is about appearance. The rest is interpretation or explanation or identification, which doesn't belong here. A reader new to the topic won't know that the bald-headed guy is Roberts, for example. We might make an exception for the two Obamas (most educated readers know already know what they look like) but not for anybody else pictured. Eubulides (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Minor comments
  • "People in the United States and from around the world paid unequaled attention to the inaugural event, with reactions ranging from celebration and praise to cautious optimism and indifference." Seems like a lot of peacockery and words to avoid crammed into a single sentence: Assert facts and substantiate
  • I suggest we replace the sentence with a statement that reviews what is referenced in article text like: "Based on combined attendance numbers, television viewership and internet traffic, it was among the most observed events ever by the global audience." Aaron charles (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

:* "the historic occasion of the 56th inauguration" every inauguration is historic, this claim seems a bit excessive

:* "Everyday American citizens", "41 "everyday" American citizens" are there biannual American citizens?

:* "extends from U.S. Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial" Wikify

:* "including big name donors" notable? wealthy? celebrities? surely something more formal

  • Group of citizens on train ride includes some tangential information, especially on Kuntz and Ledbetter that interested readers can click through to find out more
  • International reaction has some peacockish words as well that should be "neutral-ized": heralded, extended heartfelt congratulations, etc.
Overall a solid and excellently referenced article. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Linezolid

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

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

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

Support. An excellent effort at giving an interesting compound the most thorough treatment. I believe it is currently up to FA standards. I would, however, thoroughly welcome any attempt to make the introduction (and possibly some other sections) slightly more readable for the layperson. This may require short explanations and expansion on technical terms (e.g. Gram positive). JFW | T@lk 20:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've added a brief explanation of what "Gram-positive" means in the "Spectrum of activity" section; "Resistance" may need some de-jargoning later. I'm wary of explaining more in the introduction because it is quite long already. Do you have any suggestions on which areas of the lead need to be more lay-friendly? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Jfdwolff; it's an excellent and thorough summary, the sourcing is exemplary, and it's practically monograph-worthy. The only flaw I see is the one Jfdwolff identified: it's written in fairly technical language, and seems to assume the reader has a basic familiarity with medical and pharmacologic terminology. I think this is a minor issue and one we can readily fix, and otherwise it seems to exemplify some of Wikipedia's best work, as FA's ought to do. MastCell Talk 21:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm trying some generous application of WP:MTAA. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I've explained some of the more esoteric concepts, such as post-antibiotic effect and what it means for a drug to have 100% oral bioavailability. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with JFW and MastCell that the prose could be a tad more lay-readable, even now, but wow! this article is first class all the way. Eubulides (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. This is fantastic—beautifully written and relatively accessible considering the complexity of the topic. I made a couple changes but didn't really find anything to complain about. For some reason, the ALT text in the infobox images is not working. The alt text just displays the file name. A code problem with the infobox perhaps? --Laser brain (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • A little help, Eubulides? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm asking mostly out of curiosity since I wouldn't know where to look to find the answer: would it be reasonably correct when discussing the similarity with rivaroxaban to say that the pharmacophore in rivaroxaban is the morpholinone-phenyl group whereas the morpholine group is accessory in linezolid? Circeus (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Not likely; PMID 16161994 should have the answer. Rivaroxaban is probably devoid of antimicrobial activity because of the bulky chlorothiophene group "attached" to the acetamide. Even minor deviations from the 5-acetamidomethyl group (for instance, adding a single extra carbon atom) pretty much destroy antibiotic potential; reference 4 (Brickner, 1996) explains this in detail. Unfortunately, trying to explain this in the article would veer into WP:OR territory. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I'll look into it when I next get on campus. I'm not clear whether mentioning the similarity without discussing the source of differences is all that useful, though. Circeus (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Image review with two one concerns:

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

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

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

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

        • Ah, the glitz and glamour of organic synthesis... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe add a picture of the linezolid/ribosome structure? (As a side note, that ribosome cartoon is very pretty, but why no E site?) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Adding a picture of the linezolid–ribosome complex was one of my first considerations, but the linezolid molecule looks so tiny; I could add a sort of picture-in-picture close-up or I could just add an image of the binding site, but neither option seemed ideal so I just let it go. As for the translation picture, you'll have to take it up with the very talented Mariana Ruiz. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I like the picture/inset idea, but it's not crucial. I'd take a whack at it myself, but... part of the reason I'm killing time on Wikipedia again is that my good home computer is broken, I'm using my netbook, and therefore I can't get any real work done! Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I'll play with PyMol/QuteMol a bit when I get a chance and see what I can do. You can always do article work on a netbook, you know :) Isn't that what they're made for? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much for supporting, but I'm most glad to see you come out of retirement—you've been missed! :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - This is spooky, I read this article for real-life reasons without noticing it was an FA candidate! I found all the answers to the questions that were on my mind, such as spectrum, mode of action, resistance and cost. I didn't know much about the problems with extended use, and in this regard, the article was particularly enlightening. It is beautifully written in a style that helps the reader—well this one—to remember the salient points without having to re-read sections. I fully support its promotion to FA and will recommend it to my students and colleagues, well done. Graham Colm Talk 07:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Support Looks pretty comprehensive to me. Meodipt (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Since I've read the article, I might as well. I fixed a rather obvious typo along the line, so it might be a good idea to ask a third if they wouldn't mind giving it a reading, but I nonetheless do think it ranks amongst our best stuff. Circeus (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Ouch, thanks for catching that one. A spell checker is all but useless in an article with so many technical terms, so I guess I'll go over it manually once again. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Along with a few minor questions on linking: (1) Does "Gram-positive bacteria" in the lead need two adjacent links? If I needed to look up 'bacteria', I'm pretty sure I'd need to look up 'Gram-positive' as well. Why not make it a single link to Gram-positive bacteria? (2) There's another link to Gram-positive bacteria in " Spectrum of activity". Although I think a duplicate link is useful when it's well-separated from the first, don't you think in this case it's too close? Possibly Indication (medicine), Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Vancomycin-resistant enterococcus and resistant as well. (3) Does the article benefit from links to Skin, Headache and U.S. Dollar? You are sensibly using a lot of wikilinks to help explain technical terms, and links to commonly-understood terms rather dilute the value of the useful ones. --RexxS (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    • OK, most of your suggestions are in line with WP:LINK, so I've gone ahead and implemented them. Thanks :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This article is excellent. Definitely FA worthy. Well done -- Samir 22:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments from Axl:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] 7th Infantry Division (United States)

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 14:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


Easily passed MILHIST A-class review. I believe all major points meet FA criteria. —Ed!(talk) 14:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Except for the purely-decorative tiny icons, which should have "|link=" instead of alt text (see WP:ALT #When to specify). Eubulides (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks, a very nice job on the images you did. But 3 images still need alt text: the Ingman portrait and the two maps. For the maps, I suggest briefly summarizing the gist of what the maps show rather than go into a lot of detail. (A general on the phone asks you to describe each map in 40 words or less: what do you say?) Eubulides (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Added. (for the maps, I forgot to put the "alt" in the caption) How does it look now? -—Ed!(talk) 03:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
          • It looks good. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Removed the Template: Citation. As for the two websites, the first is self-explanatory. tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil is a US Military website and part of the Pentagon's network, as evident from the address. I switched the arlington.net ref (#114) to a more reliable source: an article in the Washington Post. —Ed!(talk) 19:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ruffed lemur

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


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

  • Comment I can not understand how is it possible to have 20 to 75 references (in this article) per one single-page source. Does it mean those sources are entirely rewritten here (meaning no offense) ? Materialscientist (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    The sources are very dense, stating most of the known facts about the species. To write the article, I accumulated quotations from each of these books pertaining to a particular topic, then wrote about that topic, citing the books that supported what I wrote. There may be a few quotes from these sources, but for the most part, I tried to just use books as sources. The method I used for writing this article was identical to what I used to write Ring-tailed Lemur, although there are far fewer sources discussing Ruffed lemurs vs. Ring-tailed Lemurs (the most well-known and studied species). –Visionholder (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    The density of references is excessive. As a general rule, the lead should rarely contain refs - its sentences should be expanded in the body and that is where the refs go. Regarding the body, I understand that giving several refs is good if the reader can't access some of them, but not to overdo. Just an example, in subsection "Anatomy and physiology" we see refs 5,6,12 and then after a short sentence again 5,6,12. I would just delete those refs at that first occurrence, and check the rest of the article for over-referencing (e.g. repeating ref. 12 at the end of "Threats in the wild"). Materialscientist (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you for the clarrification. This should be fixed now. Please review at your earliest convenience. –Visionholder (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. This includes the two images in the infobox. Eubulides (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - Yay! VH is back. I've been waiting for this article to pop up.
  • Monkeyland Primate Sanctuary - When you mention this, it's the only organization not linked, perhaps you could provide its location or something just to tell about it?
    • Temporarily provided the location, but seriously thinking about creating a Wiki page for it within the coming week.
  • No mammalian fossil record exists in Madagascar until recent times.' - in should either be for, or this sentence should be rewritten.
    • Fixed.
  • ...that had once spread throughout Laurasia and Africa during the Eocene epoch.[7] - been spread
    • Fixed.
  • down to anatomy: As with all lemurs, the ruffed lemur has special adaptations for grooming, including a toilet-claw on its second toe and a toothcomb. - cite?
    • Fixed.
  • Down to breeding: During the season when females practice infant stashing, males effectively lighten the reproductive burden of up to several mothers by guarding, huddling, grooming, travelling, playing and feeding with the young - playing with and feeding the young
    • Fixed.
  • Socially, they begin regularly exchanging contact calls with their mother at 3 weeks,[5] and select mother as their play partner 75–80% of the time during the first 3 months.[13] - rm "regularly"
    • Fixed.
  • I see contractions... might want to just separate them, for professionalism's sake. Ignore this nitpick if you choose. :)
    • Could you please elaborate? Maybe I'm missing it.
      • Nevermind... I read it as "contradictions", not "contractions". Anyway, it has been fixed. Two instances were found and the contractions were removed. –Visionholder (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Thanks for the copyedit! I greatly appreciate it. –Visionholder (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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

In regards to the classification section, I will see what I can do this evening. As it stands now, it is no different than what I did for the FA Ring-tailed Lemur. Also, most of the articles I have seen tend to use bullet lists for genus and species pages, while I usually see cladograms for higher classifications, such as class, order, family, etc. This can be done, but it would be nice if we could set a standard. In terms of text, I'm sure I can expand upon it. However, much of the detail about its classification is already under the Changes in taxonomy section. Maybe they should be merged? (Personally, I oppose this.)
As for an etymology section, I have searched every online and offline source I have access to, and I cannot find the root of "Varecia". Although I do know the etymology of rubra (red) and variegata (variegated - streaked, spotted, or otherwise marked with a variety of color; very colorful), I was reserving that information for the species pages... for when I get around to re-writing them. Your thoughts? –Visionholder (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, fair enough on Varecia - I can't find a root either. Cladograms not a big deal. I suppose coming from the bird project I have different expectations/assumptions about taxonomy sections, but I still think some text in the relevant section would be good. I'll comment on the article as a whole when I get time for a proper read. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've tweaked the lead a bit, mainly to avoid repetition, please check it's OK. Also have a look to see if all the "known to" are necessary Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Changes in taxonomy" more tweaks please check for unneeded padding words, esp "however". I'm happy with the content of this article, the prose just needs a careful check for repetition, padding, grammatical infelicities and the like. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Tweaks looked good and were much appreciated. Use of "known to" eliminated. Usage of "however" greatly reduced. I may need help eliminating them completely. Lastly, the Taxonomic classification has been expanded. Please read over and condense or expand as needed. –Visionholder (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Well written and very comprehensive. Didn't find any spelling or grammar errors or MOS issues, although I admit I am not the best at finding those. Rlendog (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Further comments Sorry to keep nibbling away at this, I only started this review because I've just taken Ruff through FAC, and we need more collared animals at FA (:
    • I encourage you to do a thorough review. You are doing your job, and you should be commended for it. As for collared animals, are you aiming for a featured topic? If so, once I complete the Lemur re-write that I'm working on (which may take a month or more), I will do you a favor and try to finish polishing up the Collared Brown Lemur article that I recently re-wrote. –Visionholder (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • final ce. Please check and revert anything you don't like
  • Copyedit looked very good. Only found one minor typo and fixed.
  • I can't stop! spelled out numbers less than ten and removed repetition
  • Thumbs-up on the edit. Good fix!
  • 16–43 ha needs imperial conversion.
  • Fixed.
  • Ruft occurs twice. Is this a real word or a typo for "ruff"? If the former, can we have a wikilink, wicktionary link, or gloss - I've never heard of this word, and more to the point, it's not in my excellent Chambers Dictionary?
  • It appears to have been a typo on my behalf. Fixed.
  • Cough, Grumble, Squeak, and Squeal - should these be capitalised in the text? Fine if you think they should, just checking that it's a conscious decision.
  • You're right. All other named vocalizations in the section are not capitalised if mentioned in the text (unless they start a sentence). Fixed.
  • (B1ab(iii,v)) What means this?
  • This is the criteria (code) used by the IUCN to classify the species as Critically Endangered. Those individually who are very familiar with the Red List would find this information useful... but for the general public, it should probably be omitted. (The code would take a small paragraph to explain. And in a way, it is explained in the article.) I will wait for your feedback before I delete it. –Visionholder (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • My feeling is that this, and the previous similar should be omitted as they are effectively meaningless for most readers, but that's your call.
  • Classification criteria removed. It's available in the references anyway.
  • 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) delusions of accuracy here, methinks. Unless you assure me that the measurement is exact to within 30 yds, I'd prefer 1 km (0.6 mi) or 1 km (1,000 yds)
  • Sigfig added to convert template. Fixed.
  • I agree with Materialscientist's comment on overreferencing. I would have no or few refs in the lead, and I wouldn't repeat refs within a paragraph unless either there is another ref in between, or there is a particularly contentious item that needs its own ref to void challenges
  • I will definitely clean up the lead, but I have historically over-cited the text because I have received feedback that all claims need to be cited immediately, not further down in the text (after additional claims have been made from the same ref source). I agree with you that refs shouldn't be repeated unless another ref is in between. Anyway, I'm going to work on this now. I will report back when completed and ready for a spot-check. –
  • References have been thinned out. Please review. If further clean-up is needed or references need to be restored, either make the changes or post specific details here. –Visionholder (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I expect this to be the last set of comments before I support, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I've added responses to two of the items above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Fixes complete. Please review at your earliest convenience. –Visionholder (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Media review with one concern:

  • I had always based my derivative maps off these other maps in good faith. I can't speak for the image creator's sources, but the rivers in File:Madagascar rivers.svg seem to match up with the rivers labeled on the map in "Lemurs of Madagascar and the Comoros, The IUCN Red Book Data", 1990 (pg. 24, figure 4). What's the best course of action here? I could recreate File:Madagascar rivers.svg based on my source. Ultimately, that range map will be replaced by an image I'll create derived from File:Madagascar_range_map_template.svg... which is currently derived from one or more of the files in question. I never realized things had to be this carefully documented. Should we just delete the range map? –Visionholder (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • the audio files state they are from Joseph M. Macedonia; should we add his credentials there? Furthermore, is there any information on where these sounds recorded?
  • I have uploaded dozens of audio files from Joseph Macedonia and fellow researcher Chris Mercer. Again, I never realized I had to go into such detail. How exactly do I document his credentials on each file? Is there a standard for doing so? As for the location of the recording, it is most likely that they were all recorded at the Duke Lemur Center, but that would be easy to confirm via email. Unfortunately, it would take hours to update on each audio file. –Visionholder (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The credentials is just a suggestion. One could do a Joseph M. Macedonia, or "Joseph M. Macedonia, Department of Biological Anthropology, Duke University, Durham, N.C., USA[3]" in each file. Stating where the sounds were recorded is for clarity. Jappalang (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Stanford Memorial Church

Nominator(s): Christine (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it now fulfills all the criteria for an FA. With lots of help, including from MemChu's organist, I also believe that all the issues/concerns from this article's previous FAC have been addressed. The close paraphrasing problem is now solved, thanks to Awadewit, who has approved moving forward with this FAC. The images are much improved. The "gaps in content" (architecture, earthquakes, staff) are now closed, thanks to the research assistance of Erp. Even Scartol contributed, by creating the article's attractive tables. There's even a video of the above-mentioned Robert Huw Morgan playing one of the church's organs. The improvement of this article has been a real labor of love for all of us involved. I believe that the article is as pretty as the church is, and deserving of that silver star. --Christine (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, as Scartol knows, I su--I'm really bad at tables and coding and such. Makes it looks much better, I think. Doncha love the collaborative nature of the project! --Christine (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The tables (formerly galleries) now have alt text, but this still needs work. For example, File:Memchu hopedetail.jpg's alt text is "hope detail", which says almost nothing about appearance: it should be something like "Pointed bottom of a colorful mosaic labeled "HOPE" whose margin has a head with flowering ivy. The mosaic is in a spandrel framed by stonework featuring the head of a woman." (or something like that: someone expert in architecture could no doubt do a better job). Also, the images that were not in galleries all need alt text. For example, the image in the lead infobox needs alt text; please see Template:Infobox religious building/testcases for a suggestion for that one. Eubulides (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Completed. Sorry, I wasn't sure what you meant, since this is the only time I've seen something like this requested during an FAC. I don't understand, though, why you would request something that my browser doesn't even show. Ah, well, I obey. --Christine (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not for your browser; it's for the browsers of visually impaired readers who cannot see the images (see WP:ACCESSIBILITY). Please try to pretend that you're someone new to the topic who is briefly explaining what you see to someone over the telephone. Don't interpret the image or explain where it came from (that's for the caption, or the main text).
  • The current alt text still needs some work, I'm afraid. For example, for Image:Memorialchurch1903.jpg the alt text is currently "Stanford Memorial Church, as it appeared prior to the 1906 earthquake. Notice the clock tower, which was never replaced." Almost none of this alt text describes visual appearance: only "church" and "clock tower" do that. The alt text should be reworded to describe the visual appearance only. For example, "Facade of church, in front of a clock tower that is another story higher than the facade".
  • For more about this sort of thing, please see WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples. Please review and revise the other alt text examples in the light of those WP:ALT sections. Thanks.
Eubulides (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Ooohh! Ding--the light bulb goes on. It's an accessibility thing. As we used to say in grad school, the ADA rules!! Sorry, and thanks for the explanation. Hope my improvements are adequate. If not, could someone else improve on my attempts? --Christine (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry my explanation was so bad. It's not an ADA thing, it's a W3C thing, but you've got the basic idea right. Thanks for working on it. I tweaked the alt text you added to try to conform a bit better to WP:ALT #What not to specify. However, two images (marked "alt=??") are still lacking alt text; could you please fill those in? (One of them has two captions but no alt text; I expect that one of the captions was intended to be the alt text, but can't tell which one, which is a sign that the alt text needs work.) Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
There, now I've got it. Thanks for catching the ones I missed. Done, I think. --Christine (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and thanks for doing that. Eubulides (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. --Christine (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I copyedited this article several months ago, and I'm impressed by all the additional research and work that has been poured into it. I wish we could eliminate the horizontal scroll bar, but those images of the stained-glass windows are just too lovely to shrink. Assuming the alt-text specifics are worked out, I see no reason why this shouldn't be certified as an FA. Well-written, exhaustively researched, and lovingly polished. Kudos to all involved! Scartol • Tok 15:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford United F.C.

Nominator(s): Eddie6705 (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because it has undergone a large amount of work since the last nomination. However, as ever, there will probably be a few little things which need addressing and i will happily look at any pointers. Thanks in advance. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. This still seems a bit raw to me. What is this doing in the Supporters and rivals section, for instance (uncited)? "Oxford United's firm is called the SMHS (South Midland Hit Squad) but have smaller youth firm called The Oxford Youth Outfit." Other parts don't seem to have an encyclopedic tone:
  • "However, results didn't go their way ..."
  • "Maxwell also threatened to fold the club if the merger did not go through."
Some parts seem a little awkwardly written, for instance:
  • "After the match, manager Maurice Evans asked long-serving physiotherapist, 72-year-old Ken Fish, to collect a winner's medal instead of himself."

--Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Images File:BronzeOx_Kassam.JPG looks like a derived work from a 3d art work, please clarify the licence for this. I feel the images should be alternated left/right to balance the article (as far as possible). As for File:Oxford_United_FC.svg, it is unclear why this is used in preference to the older logos which are in the public domain Fasach Nua (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

that's fine, I've been dealing with too many North American articles Fasach Nua (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Why are flags used for all players? Have they all declared intention to play for that national side, or are they only eligiable to play for one particular nation? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
How do we know that this is the milk cup? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I can't guarantee that it isn't a replica, but it looks real. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Even if it's a replica, it's still representitive, there have been so many milk cups over the year Fasach Nua (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The Milk Cup which Oxford won was the sponsored guise of the Football League Cup for about four or five years, and that is definitely the trophy used. Here is a picture of the Oxford players celebrating with it after the match, and here is an image of Liverpool with it, in which the trophy itself can be seen slightly more clearly...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose – As Malleus said, the prose is rough at the moment, with many faults to sort out. In addition to his (unfixed) examples, here are a few of my own.

  • "Oxford United Football Club is an English association football team who play in the Conference National." A club is not a person; therefore "who" is incorrect, and should be "which" or "that". Also, "play" probably should be made plural.
  • "The club has been a non-league side since relegation from League Two in 2005–06." Add "its" or "their" before "relegation"? For the record, these are the first two sentences of the article. The fact that I'm finding problems this early doesn't fill me with confidence regarding the rest of the page.
  • The lead appears to be brief considering the size of the article, with a pair of stubby paragraphs. In addition, it fails to summarize the article as a whole, as it is missing any information from the Crest and colours and Supporters and rivals sections.
  • Move the relegation link to its first mention in the lead.
  • Headington United: "during the 1940s. in 1899". Check capitalization (hint, hint).
  • Is the club meant to be singular or plural? I'm seeing a lot of inconsistencies as I read. This is not the first time this issue has come up in FACs for football clubs.
  • There are a couple uses of "being" that lead to weak sentence structures, such as "Despite the plans being postponed".
  • Promotion and Robert Maxwell takeover: "Jim Smith would have managed the club with Reading boss Maurice Evans becoming his assistant." Many times, a with+-ing connection will lead to an awkward sentence, and this is one of them.
  • "The merger was called off as a result of both clubs protesting against the decision and the Reading chairman stepping down to be replaced by an opponent of the merger." Long, convoluted sentence. I sense an overuse of passive voice here and elsewhere.
  • Move Maurice Evans link up.
  • Printed reference publishers, such as Oxford Mail and The Guardian, should be presented in italics. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The late Tony Kempster was the undisputed "guru" of non-league football data in England. He was a columinst in the national Non-League Today newspaper and according to the Football Supporters' Federation, who gave him an award in 2008 for services to supporters, his website "provides unmatched information on results, gates, tables, fixtures and even distances to grounds, is an invaluable source of information for thousands of football fans each week and carries a huge amount of information which no other site can match". This football club called his site "probably the most comprehensive football site in the world". The Non-League Paper (the other national newspaper devoted to non-league football) described him as "legendary statistician". Here is more about him from the Beeb. Hope it helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Soundgarden

Nominator(s): -5- (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the criteria for a featured article. The article is well-written and comprehensive. Any objections will be quickly addressed.-5- (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment There are a couple unsourced paragraphs in the "Post-Soundgarden" section. Ref 1 needs a publisher. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I addressed most of that I think, but I may need some help as far as what needs to be referenced specifically.-5- (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Support And I'll look around myself if -5- can't find anything for the "unsourced paragraphs". But I think -5- and the others have indeed adressed most of that and have done a really good job on this article and after a possible couple of fix-ups, if that, this article will be more than ready for FA status. Most of the article is well-sourced, the paragraphs go into good detail about their subjects and I do believe that most readers would be satisfied with the content here.--The LegendarySky Attacker 20:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've had another look through and if wanted, I could try to find another picture for the article, as the only one right now is at the top. Otherwise, I support this article reaching FA Status.--The LegendarySky Attacker 20:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added another picture to the article.-5- (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Done; thanks. The two images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Addressed as best I could. I've never done alt text before so it'll probably need a second look.-5- (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm afraid it still needs work. Alt text should mention only visual aspects, and these visual aspects should be easily verifiable by a non-expert. Please see the 3rd example in WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples. The alt text should not say "Soundgarden" or list names of people in the picture, for example, because that doesn't convey any useful information to the visually impaired reader. Please give it another try. Eubulides (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I made another attempt. I think this one's a big improvement.-5- (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, yes it is. I tweaked it a bit more. Eubulides (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment I've never been a fan of these "List of awards and nominations received by ______" pages. I see that the Soundgarden award list was delisted as an FL and merged here. However, that doesn't mean you have to preserve the format, or even give the awards their own section. Work the awards into the band history prose, keeping in mind that album and song awards/nominations can typically go in the respective articles instead of this one. Alss, double-check links. You shouldn't be citing awards/noms from fansites or site like Acclaimedmusic.net. All in all this will make the article look cleaner and make it more readable. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't merge the list, that was User:Reywas92. I just left it as it was because Nirvana (band) now has its article the same way. I believe all of the awards are already mentioned in the article anyway.-5- (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Memo to self: clean up Nirvana (band). WesleyDodds (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure inline music samples would meet our non-free content requirements, as there is no indication how the samples add significantly to the reader's understanding. It might be better to have them in those standard sound sample boxes with a detailed descriptions of how that song illustrates Soundgarden's style.
I think the first four paragraphs of the "Post-Soundgarden" should be removed (or at least condensed into a single paragraph). This article is about Soundgarden, not its members, and the info is redundant to their articles anyway. indopug (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] OverClocked ReMix

Nominator(s): Orichalcon (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because it is clearly up to date on information, well referenced, and easy to read. I can't see anything further that's needed to make the article better at this moment. Orichalcon (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I'm the primary editor of the article, so just noting that I'll keep an eye on any criticisms and suggestions regarding the nom. Thanks! - Liontamer (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

does File:OverClockedReMix.png significently increase the readers understanding of the subject? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I'd like to think so. For a website, it helps to illustrate what it looks like. Pretty standard to have it, and the caption provides additional information & context. - Liontamer (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Illustration is not grounds for taking private property in our articles, and neither is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, oppose failure to meet criteria 3 Fasach Nua (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
4chan, a recent FA, also has an infobox image of the website, because it is useful to the reader to be able to visually tell what the article is talking about when it refers to "posting" songs or "publishing" albums. Also, dismissively citing WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a really rude, please refrain in the future. --PresN 19:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what "taking private property" implies. After reading Criteria 3, the image appears to meet no qualms. Please elaborate further on what exactly needs fixing. Orichalcon (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Done; thanks. Image's alt text does not describe the image's appearance. Please see WP:ALT for advice on good alt text. Eubulides (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, I got you. I made an edit that I believe should work. Comments welcome, thanks. - Liontamer (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: is it necessary to have the album list hidden? It's not exactly long. Sceptre (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there any sort of standard on that? I've seen it done both ways. - Liontamer (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, fails criterion #3. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Please be more specific. Where exactly has the article failed? 203.59.135.16 (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
At times, some ppl like Stifle doesn't know how to read: "To oppose a nomination, write *Object or *Oppose, followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed."
It does not fail #3. It does not need images.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Remark - not knowing anything about music or sounds, and being tone-deaf, i can't support or object. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hepatorenal syndrome

Nominator(s): Samir 07:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


Meets all criteria in my opinion. The article recently went through WP:GAR where many additions were made. I invited many of our medical types and non-medical types to look over the text over the past month. All images are free; it was a challenge for me to find the TIPS image. I look forward to everyone's comments -- Samir 07:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Done; thanks. Images all need alt text as per WP:ALT. Also, I suggest moving one of the images up into the lead infobox, as this will be more likely to cause a naive reader to look at the article. Eubulides (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Alt text added to all images. -- Samir 08:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Also image added to lead infobox -- Samir 09:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The lead infobox's image also needs alt text. The Pathophysiology diagrams' alt text doesn't sufficiently explain appearance to a visually impaired reader; see the diagrams near the bottom of WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples. A nit: alt text typically shouldn't begin with phrases like "Image of". Eubulides (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok. I have placed ALT text on the schematics as: "Diagram: portal hypertension leads to splanchnic vasoconstriction, which decreases effective cirulatory volume. This leads to ascites due to renal sodium avidity and HRS due to renal vasoconstriction" and "Diagram: ascites, diuretic-resistant ascites and HRS are a spectrum. All occur in portal hypertension. Diuretic-resistance occurs with splanchnic vasodilation. When it progresses to renal vasoconstriction, HRS occurs." It is a little lengthy but explains the two images well. I have added the text: "Two part stained slide of altered cells of the liver on top labelled as alcoholic cirrhosis and cells of the kidney on the bottom labelled as being normal". Thoughts? Should the schematic ALT texts be shortened? -- Samir 18:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No, if anything lengthened a bit. I adjusted them and the lead-box alt text. Thanks for the help. Eubulides (talk) 05:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Eubulides, appreciate it -- Samir 04:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks dealt with -- Samir 03:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • There's a basic test that medical articles should pass, which I call the "Johnny test". Mom: "The doctor says that your uncle has something called hepatorenal syndrome." Johnny: What's that? Let me look it up on Wikipedia." Can Johnny get a useful answer? To some degree yes, but there's too much jargon. The first paragraph of the lead, at least, should give Johnny an overview he can understand, without jargon. How about something like this:
“ Hepatorenal syndrome (often abbreviated HRS) is a life-threatening but treatable medical condition, in which the kidneys fail to function properly as a result of cirrhosis of the liver, which may be caused by alcoholism, injury, or infection. Patients with HRS are very ill, and if untreated the condition is usually fatal. Even with treatment, less than 50% of patients survive. The only long term solution is transplantation of a new liver. The aim of treatment is to keep the patient alive until transplantation is possible, using medications, and sometimes the surgical insertion of shunt to relieve pressure on the portal vein. In some cases periodic dialysis is necessary. ”
I'm not an expert and probably got some things wrong here: I'm mainly trying to illustrate the level I believe the intro to a medical FA should aim for. Looie496 (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You're right, needs some tweaking. Working on it, need a little but not much time. Thanks -- Samir 03:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, how does the lead read now? I think it is very good personally -- Samir 06:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Great, concise and informative but easy to understand. Looie496 (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment this is an excellent and comprehensive article, but I agree with the above that the prose needs simplifying. For example, the phrase 'in the setting of' appears 8 times by my count, and sounds like doctor-speak in a way that may be off-putting to laypeople. As a minor aside, the two diagrams have jpeg jaggies; convert to SVG? Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Working on it. Thanks Opabinia. A pleasure to see you back around. -- Samir 03:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll take care of those diagrams tomorrow, if Samir won't mind. I'm surprised he didn't ask ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      • You are the best, man! Thanks dude -- Samir 03:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: sorry it has taken me a week to come and comment on this excellent article. It covers all the important aspects and I cannot detect any omissions or factual problems. I was still hoping that the following issues could be addressed:
    • There's a fair number of primary sources, and I'm not entirely sure if each of these is backed up by a secondary source affirming their relative prominence in the evidence food chain.
    • The word "Type" as in "Type 1" is capitalised. Could you clarify if this is in keeping with the WP:MOS (can't seem to find the relevant point).
    • Clearly, if you have HRS, you'd like to be in Barcelona. Is there a source confirming that this seems to be the world capital of ascites/HRS currently? JFW | T@lk 11:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Hi JFW -- yes I agree we are top heavy on the primary cites. I think we reference all of the major review articles. I will tighten the citations -- need a bit of time but not too long. The "Type 1" vs. "type 1" convention is not standardized in the literature. Couldn't find anything in WP:MEDMOS. The portal hypertensive basic research, the database work on portal hypertensive complications, and the terlipressin data are all from Barcelona. The midodrine/octreotide work was from Italy (Padua) and the TIPS work is from Toronto. MARS work and the transplant data are from a number of centres. -- Samir 04:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Military career of L. Ron Hubbard

Nominator(s): ChrisO (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote this article from scratch a couple of months ago to resolve some outstanding issues and get it up to featured article standard. It's been through two reviews, first under the auspices of WP:MILHIST, the Wikiproject with which it is associated [4], and latterly a good article candidacy which it has passed with flying colours [5]. It meets the Good Article criteria and I believe it's of a sufficiently high standard now to be considered for Featured Article status. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick review
  • Currently 4 dab links, see dab checker tool.
  • Missing a number of access dates, see checklinks tool.
  • Sisterlinks to relevant content like wikiquotes/commons?--Otterathome (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
All now resolved. The checklinks tool shows a handful of false positives (essentially places where references include hyperlinks, but the hyperlinks are not themselves references). I've added a sisterlink to Commons; there doesn't seem to be anything relevant on the other sister projects. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)

  • Comment WP:DASH: Instances of space-hyphen-space should be replaced with space-ndash-space. (The n-dash can be typed using Alt-0150 on a PC.)
  • Comment Two paragraphs lack citations: the paragraph starting "In the early hours of May 19 ...", and the one following that starting "Hubbard stated ..." Some other non-trivial sentences lack citations too. This being a contentious topic, I would prefer seeing every sentence unambiguously cited.
I've resolved the two paragraphs. If there are other sentences which you feel need additional references, please list them and I'll sort it out. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I note that according to Atack, Hubbard "does not seem to have recounted" the submarine story to his followers (p. 77). It seems Atack was not aware of the tape we cite when he wrote his book. JN466 02:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I have a WP:OR concern surrounding the I-76 submarine. We are putting together
    (1) an obscure talk from Hubbard himself, chatting informally about a submarine he believes he sank in May 1943, which he refers to as the "I-76" in that primary source;
    (2) a source which does not comment on Hubbard but says (on p. 258) that the Japanese "I-176" submarine (not "I-76", as it says in the sentence cited to it) was sunk at a particular date and location in 1944, i.e. one year later;
    (3) a source not commenting on Hubbard (cited in the caption for the submarine image on the right-hand side of the page), which says that the Japanese submarine "I-176" was named "I-76" while being built, but renamed "I-176" when it was commissioned in August 1942.
    The juxtaposition of these three sources – with the third one needed to establish the logical connection between the second and the first – implies that the "I-76" submarine Hubbard referred to and believed to have sunk in 1943 was in factthe "I-176" sunk in 1944. This represents a novel historical analysis, and is not found in secondary sources discussing the topic of this article, L. Ron Hubbard's military career.
  • Comment The following links in the article lead to disambiguation pages: American Theater Battlefield Earth Coke Tilden JN466 23:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll look into the first, second and fourth issues you've raised. As for the third, I discussed this with you at length in the peer review, and I don't propose to continue the discussion with you here - as I have said before, you are misinterpreting the original research policy. I will just point out to other readers that there is no analysis, only a juxtaposition of autobiographical statements and the official record, just as with the rest of the article. The other peer reviewers and GA reviewer did not agree with your interpretation of WP:OR - I refer you in particular to The_ed17's comments. [6] -- ChrisO (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
It is quite possible to engage in WP:SYN by mere juxtaposition, connecting facts that are not connected in the secondary literature. Here an example: "3,000 disciples of Maitreya Yogeshwara chanted mantras to aid the world economy on Tuesday.(source 1) On Wednesday, the Dow Jones Index rose by 8% (source 2, not mentioning the chanters)." Only juxtaposition, but clear SYN.
Only 3 people ever commented at the peer review; the GA review, from transclusion to "Pass", took 20 minutes, and did not raise a single content query. JN466 01:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Jayen, we've been through this before. There's nothing further that I can say that I haven't already said to refute your arguments. I suggest that we leave this issue to one side, since we are not going to agree on your idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:OR, and let others give their views. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Chris, per my referenced comments above. An article on this subject which does not mention I-76/176's sinking date as given by the U.S. Navy is not complete; to give both sides, we need Hubbard's claim and the Navy's assertion. This isn't reaching "A and B [...] joined together in an article to reach conclusion C", this is "opinion A, assertion B, [C is missing]."
I like this quote from David Fuchs (talk · contribs) regarding SYN (link): "As long as you're not linking items in a suspect way (to advance a position, as WP:SYNTH says), you're find [sic]." Here we are not advancing a position; we are stating the opinion of a U.S. Navy commander that he sunk a submarine along with what the official record on the submarine states. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least I note that Fontenoy too does refer to the earlier I-76 designation of the submarine on p. 257, and mentions the renaming on p. 258.
Still, I'd rather there were just one reliably published source out there, among the dozens of sources on Hubbard, which said, in essence,

"Hubbard always claimed to have sunk the I-76 Japanese submarine in 1943. But in fact, war records show that this submarine, which was renamed I-176 in 1942, was sunk in 1944 by someone else."

Given the absence of such a source, our article is ahead of the field. JN466 11:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Your point might be valid if the section in question - Military career of L. Ron Hubbard#Pacific service: USS PC-815 - was phrased in the way you've just put it. But it's not, so your argument is based on a strawman from the outset. It's very carefully worded to avoid synthesis. It presents two principle facts, both from reliably published sources. The first is that Hubbard said he sank the I-(1)76 off Oregon. The second is that the US and Japanese navies recorded the loss of the I-(1)76 a year later on the other side of the Pacific. If there was a "however" in there, we would be introducing an analytical element - specifically a counterbalancing consideration. But there is no "however" and no analysis, merely a statement of two facts from two sources. Re-read what Ed says about synthesis. Your interpretation is at odds with how we conventionally approach such matters, since we're supposed to present conflicting perspectives non-judgmentally ("where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly"). -- ChrisO (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
You cannot "avoid synthesis by wording". Synthesis occurs by the novel juxtaposition of unrelated sources. Your very argument that you have avoided it by careful wording indicates that you are guilty of it. On the WT:NOR talk page, editors regularly argue that as long as they haven't used the words "but", "however", etc. when combining material from unrelated sources, they have successfully avoided synthesis. Here is an editor advancing that notion just yesterday in this post. See the replies by Blueboar (talk · contribs), not a novice when it comes to this: [7][8]
Here is an earlier discussion between SlimVirgin (talk · contribs), no slouch either, and Bob_K31416 (talk · contribs), again about the very same point. Bob is arguing that as long as there is no explicit conclusion drawn, only an implicit conclusion, there is no synthesis. SlimVirgin responds that an implicit conclusion is just the same as an explicit conclusion:

... it makes no difference. A SYN violation is when an implicit or explicit conclusion is reached by synthesizing sourced material that wasn't explicitly reached by the source(s). (And a juxtaposition is just one form of synthesis.) SlimVirgin talk/contribs 21:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the current wording of WP:SYN. Another example was added recently. Check the WP:NOR talk page, too; e.g. the examples given here: Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#More_examples.
We have plenty of good sources explaining that Hubbard's superiors believed he and his crew were mistaken about the submarine. We have good sources stating that none of the other ships attending the action thought there was an enemy submarine in the area, etc. There is the safe and responsible ground to walk on in an FA; synthesising novel arguments from primary source research and army records that no other researcher has combined before you may make a fine book one day, if you ever want to publish your research, but the theory should not have its first airing in Wikipedia. The OR content should be removed; until it is I'll Oppose. JN466 18:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC) (Following SlimVirgin's input, I'll Abstain for now, pending further discussion.) JN466 20:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion, but the fact is that no other editors have supported your unusual interpretation of NOR. Your quotes don't support your case. Note that SlimVirgin, in the quote above, is speaking of a case "when an implicit or explicit conclusion is reached". There is no comparison in this case; no conclusion, implicit or explicit, is reached; the two opposing positions are stated without any conclusion being drawn. Furthermore, the OR issue was specifically addressed during the Good Article review and was passed by the reviewer. As far as I'm concerned, a decision to oppose that is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:OR is inoperative. The consensus of everyone who's commented on this issue is against you, I'm afraid. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, ChrisO, the GA review did not comment on this issue at all. The only other editor who has ever taken an interest in it was Ed, who commented above as well, and commented once in the peer review, a few weeks after we had stopped discussing it.
The OR elements are
(1) the importance you attribute to an obscure primary source quote, for which I was able to find all of three google hits outside Wikipedia (all of these are on other Wikis). There is not a single hit in google books for "Ron Hubbard" and "I-76": [9];
(2) the assumption that Hubbard would have known that the I-176 was formerly briefly called the I-76, and that he was talking about the I-176 when he was referring to the I-76 (rather than just bragging, playing to his audience and pulling a plausible-sounding number out of the sky)
(3) the absence of any reliable source commenting on a claim by Hubbard to have sunk the "I-76" and countering this claim with extant navy records.
It simply is original research -- it may be brilliant original research for all I know, but you didn't summarise the existing literature on Hubbard. Instead, you aim to add to it through Wikipedia. WP:OR is policy. SlimVirgin's latest. JN466 23:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
This is from existing literature. The fact that you can't find it in Google Books or via Google is irrelevant and is another strawman argument - Google does not (yet!) contain all published material, and actually has very little Scientology literature in it (presumably for copyright reasons). As for the GA review, you're dead wrong on that point - see Talk:Military career of L. Ron Hubbard/GA1 and note point 2c. The reviewer checked for OR and passed it. Like I said, the only person who thinks this is OR is you, so I suggest that you accept that consensus is against you and move on. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Existing literature, yes, but not existing literature on Hubbard! Rather than vaguely implying that there are secondary sources on Hubbard and his I-76 that don't show up in Google Books (nor Questia, nor google news, nor JSTOR ...), cite them if they exist.
To summarise, in my view Chris needs a secondary source that ties all his elements on the I-76 together, otherwise he is engaged in original research (he has self-published a lot on Hubbard's war record online). It may be genuinely interesting original research, but WP:NOR doesn't say that we allow good original research. JN466 10:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
How about someone solicits opinions from the FA director and the two delegates? It's rather obvious that none of you are going to budge :) To Chris: other cites you could use for the sinking of I-176 are the official DANFS entries: Franks and Johnston, although I note that they conflict; Franks says "In May, screening minelayers in Buka Passage, Franks and Haggard (DD-555) contacted, attacked, and sank Japanese submarine I-176 on 16 May.", but Johnston says "[...] she took up antisubmarine patrol off Bougainville. During this duty 15 May 1944, she depth charged and sank Japanese submarine I-176." —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 13:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I was asked to comment here on the SYN issue. I don't see this as a violation of SYN. SYN involves combining source material in a way that advances a position (a suggestion, argument, conclusion, implication) that isn't advanced by any of the sources. It's a form of POV pushing, often inadvertent.
What this article does is combine source material in a way that is purely informative. What position is being advanced regarding Hubbard? The article makes clear that he believed he had sunk a Japanese submarine, and that others disagree. It also says that the British and U.S. analysed Japanese losses and there appeared to be none missing during the period Hubbard says he did this, though a submarine called I-176 was sunk a year later than the Hubbard timeframe, and that same submarine used to have the name Hubbard gave for it. Is the writer of the article supposed to keep this information to himself? "Ha, ha, I know something they'd all love to know, but I'm not going to tell them!" Perhaps yes, if we were dealing with a sensitive BLP issue, and harm could come of it, but in an article about a historical figure, it's simply interesting, and I think it would be obtuse of us not to mention it, even if the sources don't make reference to Hubbard.
SYN does say that source material must explicitly refer to the topic, but that shouldn't be rigidly interpreted to mean, "must explicitly refer to the title of the article," because that would be very disabling. SYN exists to stop editors from sliding in their POVs with the poor use of source material that isn't strictly relevant, to say something none of the sources wanted to say. It's not there to stop editors from using source material to inform readers in a way that seems to flow naturally from the narrative. I admit that this can be a fine line, often based on intuition, but I don't believe it has been crossed here. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to comment. One concern I had is that we are giving a weight to an obscure primary source – i.e. the 1950s Hubbard audio talk referring to the "I-76" – that it does not have in the secondary literature, which ignores it completely. This may be simply because no one noticed the talk before Chris, but it could have other reasons too. For example, I don't know how often Hubbard talked about this incident, and whether the story and the submarine type were always the same, each time he told it. I have no way of finding out either. Yet we are devoting a sizeable part of the article to this material. We are giving a 225-word verbatim quote from the talk; whereas it would take just a dozen words to say that Hubbard once expressed a belief he had sunk the I-76 Japanese submarine. Thoughts? JN466 20:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Btw, the POV position put forward, such as I saw it, was that Hubbard was either a Munchhausen character, someone who enjoyed telling tall tales, or a fool; and put forward using sources that hadn't been used in that way before. Maybe I'm hypersensitive, but it reminded me of various Internet pages entitled "Ron the Nut", "Ron the War Hero" etc. All very good fun, but not necessarily encyclopedic. Then again, I am quite prepared to entertain the notion that I've asked too much of Chris here, as long as I also hear it from someone else than Chris. :) I've changed my Oppose on this issue to Abstain above, so we can leave it at that if you like. Cheers, JN466 20:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you mean. When you say the "1952 Hubbard audio talk," do you mean this ref: Hubbard, L. Ron (October 23, 1956). "CRA Triangle". Fifteenth American Advanced Clinical Lectures. Bridge Publications? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes. JN466 21:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
We had this problem a few times with LaRouche quotes that hadn't appeared in secondary sources. One editor who was very familiar with LaRouche had back copies of one of his magazines, and would use quotes from it. Some of the LaRouche supporters said it amounted to OR. It boils down to two things: (a) is there any reasonable doubt that the subject really said these things? and (b) is the quote being used to bring him into disrepute, in a way that's unsupported by any other source? As the issue of whether he did or didn't sink a Japanese submarine is being discussed by secondary sources, I see no harm in quoting Hubbard directly on the subject. It's hard for me to comment in more detail, because I'm not familiar with the source material, so I can't judge whether the long quote is being used in a way that might be unfair or out of character for him. It certainly seems okay to me, based on the little knowledge I have. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
There actually isn't any alternative to quoting Hubbard's published works directly, as there is no official biography of his life, and certainly no official coverage that addresses this period of his life in any great detail. On the other hand there is a great deal of critical coverage of this period of his life from unofficial biographers and exposés. The problem I faced in (re)writing this article was how to keep it balanced given the disparity of sourcing - a massive amount of anti-Hubbard material and sparse pro-Hubbard material. The only way I could find to resolve this was to quote what Hubbard himself actually said in his own works, such as books and lectures, and let the man speak for himself to supplement the otherwise sparse pro-Hubbard material on this period. There's no issue about the authenticity of his spoken words, since they're not only given on tape/CD but are published in transcript form (which I think would technically count as a secondary source?) by his official publishing organisation. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I find it stretches credulity that you might have put that 200-word quote in to show Hubbard in a good light, and to balance the anti-Hubbard sources. He comes across like an ass. So if that is your intent, just say something like "Hubbard claimed in a 1956 talk that he had sunk the I-76.", bearing in mind that the research we can call upon today as to the fate of each individual ship was not then available, and delete the rest of the quote.
Also, coming back briefly to the sparsity of "pro-Hubbard" material, during the peer review I pointed you to a 2009 (2000) Oxford University Press source that said it did seem like Hubbard had sunk a submarine after all: [10].

It appears that PC 815 did engage and sink a Japanese submarine off the Oregon coast, a fact only recently substantiated because of the American government's reluctance to admit that the Japanese were in fact operating off America's Pacific Coast during the War.

– J.R.Lewis (ed.), Scientology, Oxford University Press 2009, p. 20, identical passage also in Melton (2000)

I suggested that because it was verifiable, and reputably published, we should think about dropping it in, with attribution, just to satisfy NPOV, but you were adamant and wouldn't have any of it.
Coming to the wider issue SlimVirgin raises, the use of primary source quotes is something that I generally prefer to see handled through the filter of secondary sources. In the German Wikipedia, where I sometimes do a bit of work as well, this is actually policy – the very act of selection from a primary-source corpus is considered an original analysis, and inappropriate whenever there is a sufficient body of secondary literature available. It is that body of secondary literature that should be reflected in the Wikipedia article, with due weight (e.g. what to quote) established by that literature. Personally, I think that makes sense. Bypassing existing analyses of a primary-source corpus in favour of making original selections from it strikes me as not in line with the spirit of WP:OR. So I'd have some sympathy for the LaRouchies there. Just think of a politician that you really like (if there is such a thing), and then imagine someone compiling a list of all the daftest things your favourite has ever said, all the stumbles, all the jet-lagged interviews, etc., and making these statements overwhelm the article with the justification, "But he did say that", and passing it off as an encyclopedic treatment when there are reputably published, rounded analyses available that the article could draw on. --JN466 00:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Come on, Jayen, this is just tendentious. We've discussed Melton before and the reasons for excluding his claim: the lack of any corroboration, the fact that he's not a military historian (or an historian of any kind) so has no qualifications to make such a claim, and the fact that it completely contradicts the entire corpus of WW2 Japanese naval history - a classic red flag situation. You've been obsessing over this one single point literally for months. Please just move on and let the rest of us get on with developing articles in peace without the constant wikilawyering and wall-of-text arguments. I do not propose to reply to any further comments you post, since there is clearly nothing that can be gained by doing so. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Only pointing out the inherent contradiction in your bemoaning, above, the sparsity of "pro-Hubbard" material, while at the same time insisting that we shouldn't cite any such sources, even if reputably published, because you think they're wrong. JN466 00:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Jayen, I agree with you about editors picking and choosing from primary-source material, and I have quite a lot of sympathy with the German position, though I wouldn't want to go that far. I certainly agree that, where an issue in someone's life is not mentioned at all by secondary sources, we shouldn't use primary sources to draw attention to it. However, in this case, the sinking or not sinking of this submarine is discussed by secondary sources. Even if this particular quote isn't in secondary sources, the subject matter is not something that a Wikipedian has unilaterally chosen to write about.
As for J. Gordon Melton, personally I would use that. The book is published by Oxford University Press, and the editor, James R. Lewis, is a specialist in cults. I would use it simply for the sake of providing balance, though I think I also agree with Chris that it's not clear how Melton knows this, and he doesn't seem to explain, so it's not ideal. Actually, what I would do in this situation is write to Melton to ask him what his sources were, and I'd try to follow up from there. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
By the way, just to clarify, I wouldn't see the disagreement over Melton as a reason to object to promoting the article. There are legitimate arguments for and against using him, and if anyone were going to write to him to request clarification, it could take some time, so I'd see that as part of the normal editing process, not something that had to be done for FA. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
As it happens, I know what Melton's source is - the late L. Fletcher Prouty, an ex-USAF officer who was a fairly notorious JFK conspiracy theorist associated with the holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review. The Church of Scientology turned to Prouty during the 1980s to comment on Hubbard's military career and he wrote a number of pieces for them arguing that there was a US government conspiracy to falsify Hubbard's naval records. Prouty has absolutely zero credibility as a reliable source for anything, so I'm not surprised that Melton has declined to attribute a claim that originated with him. But the main problem with Melton's claim isn't so much the lack of sources as the fact that it contradicts everything that is known about Japanese military history from World War II. The US, Japanese and Royal Navies and naval historians all state that no Japanese submarines were even anywhere near Oregon in 1943, let alone were lost there. Melton appears to be completely oblivious to the implications of his claim - one would think a responsible or competent scholar would attempt to verify it or cite a source. His claim contradicts over 50 years of scholarship and dozens of published works. As I said, this is a classic example of a red-flagged claim: "a claim that is contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community [in this case military historians], or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons." Even if Melton were to write back to disclose his source - he's not very responsive, I gather from others who've tried to clarify or correct his statements - the claim would still have to be excluded on the grounds of being way out on the fringe. There is nothing in any published literature that would back it up - I've checked - and a huge amount that actively contradicts it. It is literally a one-man viewpoint in opposition to all the published accounts of the Imperial Japanese Navy's history. It's not that I think Melton is wrong (though I do), but that he's making a claim in an area (military history) in which he has no expertise, without any sourcing, and which is contradicted by the entire corpus of sources on the IJN's submarine fleet. Note that it is not a claim about cults, so his (alleged) expertise in that field is not relevant. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)(outdent) Some scholars like Melton and Frenschkowski say that critics lack access to "many pertinent documents housed in the Chuch's archives". Frenschkowski has written that "Hubbard's assertions about his military career in WWII, e.g., have been much nearer to the truth than Russell Miller [widely cited in our article] is trying to show, as can be seen from his naval records that have been made public during the processes following the publication of Bare-faced_Messiah (a complete set of the relevant documents is part of my collection)." But unfortunately, and somewhat maddeningly, Frenschkowski fails to give further details, except to say that "This material so far is not part of any bibliography of Hubbard." I still think it unlikely that Melton is right on the submarine. Even though he is a reputable scholar – he writes the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Scientology – other scholars have commented that he tends to follow the Scientology party line rather closely. On the other hand, I wouldn't bet my house on Melton being wrong either. ;) I'd be in favour of mentioning his view, with attribution, simply because it is a notable minority view, and in Miller and Atack we are ourselves citing sources whose accuracy others like Melton and Frenschkowski have at least partly questioned. It may not be a bad thing if the reader gets the impression that there are still disputes about some of the details of Hubbard's military career, and that future publications may shed more light on these. JN466 01:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be against this inclusion in the article—IMHO, this is clearly a fringe theory, so why should we include his viewpoint? If anything, it should be clearly shown in the article that he is probably wrong: "Although an overwhelming majority of sources support that I-176 was sunk in May 1944,<many refs> scholar (first name) Melton supports the claim that PC-815 sunk the submarine off of Washington on (date)." —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 01:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Melton does not refer to the I-76 or any other designation; he just says "a submarine". JN466 02:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC) - ChrisO (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Without providing any sourcing and contradicting the long-established facts that the Japanese navy withdrew all of its submarines to the western Pacific by the end of 1942 and didn't lose any submarines off the US west coast at any point during the war. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
If Melton's source really is L. Fletcher Prouty, he shouldn't be used; Prouty is at the centre of a swirl of conspiracy theories. Chris also has a point about Melton not being a military historian, and it did rather jump out at me that Melton didn't cite a source. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as I recall, Prouty made a statement on Hubbard's notice of separation and the number of his medals, rather than anything to do with the submarine story, but I am now out of my depth. Short of writing to Melton, I couldn't tell you what this particular passage is based on. FWIW though, what ChrisO said above about all Japanese submarines retreating to the West Pacific, and the Japanese not losing any submarines off the US west coast at any point during the war, is directly contradicted by this Naval Institute Press source, which says that

"a very few [Japanese] submarines continued to operate in the North Pacific after the loss of Attu and the evacuation of Kiska" [which was in May 1943] ... the I-180 was sunk during a late night attack in the vicinity of Kodiak by the USS Gilmore (DE-18) on 26 April 1944.

– The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II By Carl Boyd, Akihiko Yoshida, p. 160

Kodiak is jolly well not in the West Pacific. It's on Southern Alaska's west coast, so it seems overconfident to say that an Oxford University Press-published scholar can be discounted without second thought, because there "simply weren't" any Japanese submarines on the US west coast after 1942.
I would suggest we give the date of Hubbard's lecture and shorten the quote from the lecture to the essentials; 225 words is excessive. Let's leave the rest for another day. Thanks for looking in, Slim. Cheers, JN466 03:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm fairly confident that Chris' use of "west coast" is not meant to apply to the Aleutian Islands. Also, while Dutch Harbor is 2500 miles from Tokyo, the state of Washington is 4784. I-176—and I'd assume her aforementioned sister I-180— had a range of 8000 miles, meaning that to simply get to Washington and back would require more fuel than they could carry. To patrol off of a coast waiting for a target would take even more fuel! As such, I seriously doubt that any Japanese submarine would have been sent to patrol off of the west coast in the latter stages of the war due to the massive logistical problems it would entail. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Kodiak Island is not an Aleutian Island. It's 250 miles southwest of Anchorage, Alaska. A Japanese submarine was sunk there in 1944. Another Japanese submarine made attacks on the Oregon coast in 1942. The Washington coast is somewhere between those two locations, so it's at least conceivable for a Japanese sub to have been there in 1943.
If anything, the west coast would have been easier to reach for Japanese submarines in spring 1943, because from June 1942 until May 1943 they had a base on Attu Island, about halfway between Japan and the US. They didn't need that base though to reach the west coast in '42 and '44. Let's take any further discussion of this to the article talk page though. Cheers, JN466 08:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's drop the discussion about Melton; I am myself in two minds as to whether we should or should not mention him. Let's just assume it is irrelevant to this FA, as SlimVirgin said earlier. Okay? --JN466 08:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Fixed; thanks. The alt text is present, but it contains info that is not that helpful (see WP:ALT). For example, the lead image's alt text is "Photograph of L. Ron Hubbard in naval uniform in Astoria, Oregon in 1943." but a typical reader won't know what L. Ron Hubbard looked like back then, or that the photo is dated 1943, or that it was taken in Astoria. Alt text should focus on appearance: it should say only what a typical reader would see and understand without looking at the containing article or caption. Better would be something like "Head and shoulders portrait of man in circa 1940 U.S. uniform of a junior naval officer". Similarly for the other images. Eubulides (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the alt tags to take an approach which, to be honest, I'm more comfortable with than a vague description - a little bit of specificity to start off with followed by a description of the scene. For instance: "Photograph of the submarine chaser USS PC-815 viewed from the starboard (right) bow (front) aspect, showing a single-masted vessel running at speed with a large wake visible, a deck gun prominent on the bow and a crew member standing at the starboard aft (rear) railings." Let me know if you think this approach works. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
This is much better, but the visually-impaired Wikipedian that I've corresponded with has expressed a strong preference for brief descriptions, I suppose because they didn't want to get bogged down listening to info that's only marginally relevant. The alt text should not say "L. Ron Hubbard" when the caption already says "L. Ron Hubbard"; first, that will result in the same text being read twice to the visually impaired reader, and second, most people don't know LRH's appearance from a hole in the ground so saying that an image looks like LRH is not conveying useful information to them. I took a shot at trimming down the alt text somewhat so that it covers only what's visible in the image, and omits details (such as whether we're seeing the port or starboard side of a vessel) that aren't that immediately useful; please revert any part of this that strikes you amiss. That change also adds the "|link=" for the decorative image. Thanks for helping out with alt text. Eubulides (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much, that looks good to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The source is dated significantly after the image was taken, is this source even correct? if it was taken by the military it is probably PD Fasach Nua (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Two questions: could you explain which NFCC criteria you believe it fails? Secondly, I don't really understand your concern about the source. It's a 2008 book which includes a biogaphical profile of Hubbard. The accompanying caption reads "Portland, Oregon, 1943. L. Ron Hubbard, captain of the US Navy subchaser PC 815". -- ChrisO (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The image fails to meet nfcc#8. Was 2008 the first time this image was published? Is the copyright of the image asserted by the publisher? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I've seen the image published in other publications dating back to the mid-1990s. There is no attribution of the copyright. However, it may be moot anyway - I've found an alternative copyright-expired image, published at the time by a now-defunct newspaper. Take a look at File:Hubbard and moulton.jpg and see what you think. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Well done on finding a free alternative. The original image may fall into this category, and it is of better quality, FA should be our "best work", but it is not an easy thing to prove the origin of some images. Fasach Nua (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Done. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Content queries

  • Comment Our article includes the statement, "Their reports do not list any Japanese submarine losses for mid-May 1943, and do not list any Japanese submarine losses off the US coast during the whole of the war.[42]", cited to a June 1946 source.
    Later sources – Fontenoy, p. 258, Carl Boyd, Akihiko Yoshida, p. 160, [11] – list the I-180 as sunk off Southern Alaska, while Boyd + Yoshida (p. 211) list the I-31 as lost on 13 May 1943 off Attu (Aleutian island).
    Both halves of the statement cited to that 1946 source appear to be outdated and superseded by later research. --JN466 05:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I've amended the article to take care of these points. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I've tweaked the wording, please review. --JN466 22:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that looks OK to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Goodie. --JN466 23:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Our article contains the passage,

    Among the other awards listed on the record released by the Church is the British Victory Medal,[70] an award issued for service in the British armed forces in the First World War and that was never awarded by itself.[71]

The record distributed by the Church is shown in the article. As can be seen, whoever typed it had trouble fitting everything in. The text runs out of the box on the right, and at the bottom. In particular, the line

  • American Defense, Br.& Dtch. Vict. Meds.

runs out of the box on the right by some considerable margin. The entire word "Meds." does not fit in the box. Hubbard himself, according to this source ;), referred to the medal in question as the 1939-45 War Medal. This redlink would seem like a suitable candidate for a redirect to War Medal 1939–1945. This was a British World War II medal comparable to the World War II Victory Medal (United States) in that every Brit soldier who had served 28 days at sea got one. The assertion that the Church document refers to the World War I Victory Medal (United Kingdom) is sourced to the Church record itself, but surely represents a Wikipedian's interpretation of this primary source. Likewise, the source cited for background information on the British Victory Medal again does not mention Hubbard; its relevance to this article hinges on a Wikipedian's interpretative claim about the primary source. Now, a plausible alternative interpretation of the line in the Church record surely would be that it is simply short for

At any rate, if I were the typist required to fit all of that in, and I was already on the last line I could fit into the box, and the box was only 35 characters wide, I might have decided to just call the British and Dutch things "victory medals" as well, because they were rough equivalents to the United States' World War II Victory Medal. Of course I am not suggesting that this analysis should go in the article; I am just saying that it is an alternative and equally plausible analysis of this document. Just like your analysis, it is not based on a secondary source, and has no business being in the article. --JN466 23:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, the document is signed by an officer who didn't exist, it lists Hubbard as commanding one vessel which didn't serve in the war and another which didn't exist, it shows Hubbard with a degree (civil engineering) which he definitely didn't possess as he dropped out of his course, and it shows Hubbard with multiple awards (including European ones!) of which there is no record of him ever having received. Your analysis is pure unsourced speculation. We are not in the business of speculating what might have been in the mind of the person who typed that document (probably Hubbard himself, actually); the facts are that the document attributes Hubbard with a number of things, and reliable sources state that those things either did not happen or did not exist. It is a parallel situation to the issue with the I-176 that was discussed above. I suggest you re-read the advice that others have given you, as you seem to have forgotten it already. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The document does not say Hubbard got the British First World War victory medal. That is purely your speculation, or the speculation of whoever added this passage. You are forgetting one thing here: by laying it on too thick, you serve no one. Just stick to the stuff that clearly is off base, without trying to turn the whole thing into a Laurel and Hardy pantomime. That may go over well on Operation Clambake, where you are preaching to the converted, but not here. --JN466 00:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
It says he was awarded the "British Victory Medal" - fact one. There was only one British "Victory Medal" issued in Hubbard's lifetime, for service in the First World War - fact two. Both facts are indisputable and reliably sourced. Your speculation is based on supposition and no sourcing whatsoever, and your POV agenda is obvious. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The 1939-45 War Medal has sometimes been referred to as the ‘Victory Medal’, though this is not its official title. Hubbard himself referred it to it as the "(British) 1939-45 War Medal", according to this self-published researcher. I think Hubbard had brains enough to tell apart the first and second world wars. --JN466 00:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The service record document we're discussing does not credit Hubbard with the award he claimed in the 1970s. Again, it's supposition on your part to suggest that the document's author was referring to that particular medal. We do not know what was in the author's mind and it's pointless and OR to speculate. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect JN, how can you say that "American Defense, Br.& Dtch. Vict. Meds." is the same as "American Defense, British 1939-45 War Medal and Dutch Bronze Cross"? I am totally at a loss as to how we got from A to B. —Ed Talk • Say no to drama 01:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought I had made myself clear? I said that this was just as speculative as the conclusion that "Br. Vict. Med." referred to the World War I Victory Medal, especially bearing in mind that the British 1939-45 War Medal is also referred to as the "Victory Medal" and Hubbard himself claimed quite clearly in his writings that he got the British 1939-45 medal. There is no secondary source cited that says Hubbard's notice of separation [is so badly forged that it] claims he got a World War I medal for his role in the Second World War. Given that there is no secondary source that has made this (rather odd) analysis of the primary source, it's original research. JN466 00:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I think this arguement could go both ways; if there was only one "Victory Medal" given out by the Brits, and it was that WWI one, there is a strong case for linking it. What else could it be referring too, outside of something non-existant (like the Dutch one is)? —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 01:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
As I have said several times now, the term "Victory Medal" was also current for the British 1939-45 war medal. Hubbard himself appears to have claimed in his writings that he got the British 1939-45 medal, as well as the Dutch Bronze Cross. JN466 01:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, but Hubbard didn't serve with a British or Commonwealth force at sea, making him ineligible for the medal; also, while that page says that he claimed he got the 1939-45 War Medal, it makes no connection between that and the "British Victory Medal". Same problem with the Bronze Cross and the "Dutch Victory Medal". —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 01:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I believe Hubbard claimed he participated in some form of joint action with them in the South Pacific. What we should do is to look for reliable published sources that comment on Hubbard's claims and their likely veracity, and then we should summarise what they say in the article. We should not be looking at the primary source document and write what we think.
Please remember that we have multiple strong sources in the article that call Hubbard "virtually a pathological liar", that he had made "false claims", etc. It is not as though excising the original research will leave the reader with the false impression that Hubbard's claims are generally held to be correct, or that we are endorsing them. All I am trying to do is to keep the article honest, and that means no original research. JN466 02:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Re War medal: Hubbard was not part of the British or any Commonwealth military—as a member of the U.S. Navy, there is no way the medal could have been awarded to him. I think that a mention of Hubbard's claim to be owed the medal followed by its requirements would be helful though, assuming we find an RS for the claim of the war medal.
Okay, so how about we remove the 'WWI Victory Medal for WWII' sentence, as I see that it could be ambiguous. Without the ambiguity, though, Chris' interpretation would certainly be justified. —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 04:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
We do not have a reliable source for Hubbard's claim to be owed the 1939-45 War Medal, which is why I didn't include that in the article; the only source for that claim is an unpublished letter which, as far as I know, has never been published or quoted in print. Miller and Atack refer to it but do not quote from it. Although I've got a copy of it myself, I purposefully avoided quoting from it as it's unverifiable for most people. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
In addition, the "self-published researcher" you gave above really says this regarding the two medals:
  • British Victory Medal
    • This medal simply does not exist. It does not appear on Hubbard's official file. Furthermore, the British Ministry of Defence has no record of a Lt. L. Ron Hubbard ever having been awarded a British decoration.
  • [...]
  • Dutch Victory Medal
    • Like its supposed British counterpart, this medal simply does not exist. It does not appear on Hubbard's official file. —Ed Talk • Say no to drama 02:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I might point out that the Bronze Cross (Netherlands) was not a "victory medal". It's an award for bravery that has been been awarded in numerous campaigns since World War II. The Dutch did not have a "Victory Medal" as such; the Medal of Recognition is probably the closest equivalent. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Are we agreed that the 1939–45 War Medal is at times referred to as the "Victory Medal" for World War II? Can we agree then that it is perfectly plausible to assume that this was the Victory Medal referred to in the Church document? Is this not in fact more plausible than to assume the Church document is trying to refer to a World War I medal, given that Hubbard was seven years old when World War I ended? My concern is that we might be seen to be erecting strawmen to knock down which have no existence anywhere in the literature on Hubbard, except in your self-published online writings. JN466 00:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
No, we are not agreed. That is unsourced original research. It stays out of the article, period. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. I have never argued for inclusion of this in the article. I have argued that the assertion that the British Victory Medal must be the World War I medal should be deleted, because this assertion is not supported by the available secondary literature. (I actually deleted it, and Chris restored it.) JN466 12:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is concerning the ship, "Mist".
  • We first mention her in the Military_career_of_L._Ron_Hubbard#Atlantic_service:_USS_YP-422_and_after section. We say that Hubbard lost command of her, but never mention that he was given command of her. Could that fact be added, perhaps with a date, if available? This section makes clear that the "Mist" was converted for military service, and that Hubbard commandeered her. Later on, when critiquing the supposed forgery of his military record, we say that the "USS Mist" referred to on that record "left US Navy service in 1919, when Hubbard was six years old". Clearly, the ship referred to on the supposed forgery is the ship we have described at length in the Military_career_of_L._Ron_Hubbard#Atlantic_service:_USS_YP-422_and_after section, which Hubbard indeed briefly had command of, and not this ship here. JN466 00:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
There was no "USS Mist" in World War II, period. The USS YP-422 was never called the USS Mist at any point in its service. You are speculating again. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
All I am saying is that it does not make a whole lot of sense to tell the reader, at length, about how a ship named "Mist" became Hubbard's first command, and then to say a few paragraphs further down that there wasn't ever such a ship, or rather, that it left US Navy service when Hubbard was a kid. We'll have to find some other way. JN466 01:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I've reworded the lines in question to clarify this point. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The recent Scientology arbitration case concluded that

13) ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights) significantly edited, between August 2005[12] and September 2007[13], a subsequently deleted attack page, re-instating unreliably sourced material[14] and voting to "Keep" the article in an AfD discussion.[15] In his sysop capacity, he protected the article[16]; declined a CSD[17]; and blocked the subject of the article herself.[18] and twelve of her sockpuppets. Elsewhere, he added disparaging material[19][20] from an inadequate source to a BLP; and restored self-published material[21][22][23][24][25].

The last of the above diffs in which ChrisO cited self-published writings was this very article that is the subject of this FAC. ChrisO has reworked the article since then, but it still contains several lines of argument that are unique to his self-published research and not found elsewhere. I will oppose this nomination until these elements are removed. Our job is to summarise the reliably published literature. Any primary-source analysis, such as analyses of Hubbard's purported notice of separation, has to be based on secondary sources other than Chris's self-published research. JN466 01:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you even look at the last diff? It's from 2007, and he's reverting the addition of copyvio'd material. Perhaps you should let others comment on this FAC, because it sure looks like you are on a vendetta against Chris. —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 02:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course I looked at the diff. The article cited his private correspondence (!) as a source for an assertion, and ChrisO left it there as a reference. I am not on a vendetta against Chris, beyond this: I believe this Wikipedia article should reflect what is written about Hubbard's military career in reliable sources. It should not reflect ChrisO's self-published writing. JN466 02:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I see that he cited his personal correspondence then and reverted the copy/paste addition of his personal correspondence then, but does that have any bearing or effect upon the article today? Please give a list of the references you have problems with, please; it's difficult to reply without knowing which ref(s) you think are "ChrisO's self-published writing", especially as Chris' email is no longer a reference... Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 04:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
It has no bearing whatsoever on the article today - this is blatant tendentious editing from Jayen in an obvious POV-driven campaign to sabotage this FA nomination. He's raising objection after objection, promoting his personal, unsourced suppositions. These are not good-faith actions. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The medals and separation notice are one example where I feel we are going beyond the analyses available in reliable sources. (There used to be much more original analysis of this in the article in earlier days, so there has already been a dramatic improvement.) Here is "Hubbard navy medals scientology" in google books and in google news. Those are the views we should summarise, in due proportion to their published prominence in the best and most reputable sources, and without going beyond these sources. No?
In these sources, there is wide support (with only a small number of sources dissenting) for the assertion that Hubbard claimed to have 20 or more medals, and that the Navy said he only got the four standard ones. That is all we need to say on the topic. There is no support in these sources for discussing British WWI medals. (There is well-sourced scholarly support though for the assertion that Hubbard was determined "to place personal truth before objective truth" and "believed his own lies" [26][27][28], if anyone were looking to add analysis.)
Here are the available news, scholar and book sources that specifically mention Hubbard's separation notice document: google books, google news, google scholar. Please look at them; the one source that discusses it takes the opposite view to the one represented in the article; so using this search term, there is no RS support for our analysis of the separation notice document either.
Given the history of the Scientology topic area in this project, as outlined in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Characterising_the_dispute, I feel passionate about having responsible NPOV coverage of it in Wikipedia. In particular, it should comply with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Neutrality_and_sources:
4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional. Passed 12 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Due weight being established by reliable sources means that we do not add analyses of things that have remained unanalysed in RS. Another example is the alleged non-existence of the USS Howland, or the history of the 1919 USS Mist; if it is not discussed in a single RS, how is mentioning it in line with the above arbcom principle? So unless such sources can be brought forth (the ones cited do not relate to Hubbard and do not establish due weight), I am in favour of deleting the material shown in red in this diff. I don't believe the article will be appreciably diminished by that.
Chris means well – he has researched this matter deeply, he feels passionately about this topic and has strongly-held opinions about it. Given this background, I believe it is very hard for him to not add further analysis beyond what the RS say. I can understand his passion. But for this to be an FA, it should comply with policy and arbcom principles, and it should comply scrupulously. This is the first Scientology article up for FA since the arbcom. It is not a bad article by any means, and I am sorry that tempers have gotten frayed. Despite the apparent heat of the discussion, in my view there is not much standing in the way of this article receiving FA status. I'll be taking a break from this review for a few days. JN466 12:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The first paragraph in the section "Western Pacific service" does not have any references for the most part. Could we add them? I think the material is mostly taken from Atack and Miller. JN466 04:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments on sources

  • Many of the books lack publisher location information
  • The Malko book lacks ISBN
  • No need to give the page reference of the Corydon book in the source listing
  • Citations lacking publisher details: [8], [52], [58], [70], [72], [73], [85]

Otherwise the sources look solid. Brianboulton (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Publisher info has been added.
  • The Malko book apparently doesn't have an ISBN. None is listed - it was apparently published just before ISBN was adopted.
According to Abebooks, the ISBN for this book is 1-112-96373-1. ISBN was introduced in 1966, but it didn't become universal until 1970, and I dare say some editions of this book (yours, perhaps) were printed without the code. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll add that to the article. I was unable to find any ISBN details in the book. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Redundant page reference has been deleted.
  • Publisher details have been added for [8], [52], [58], [72], [73]. [70] is a bit complicated as it is a document attributed to the US Navy, which the Navy itself has disowned; I've done what I can with the reference. The citation format for [85] is correct - it's a series of reports called the Family Law Reports. They don't appear to be attributed to any specific publisher.ChrisO (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Law reports in the UK are usually published by Jordans. In this case the xenu site webmaster probably got them from there. However, since Ealdgyth has struck on this issue, I don't think it's worth pursuing. My sources concerns are all met now. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 58 (Scientology myths: Psychiatry....) is lacking a publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
  • Current ref 64 is "Greenwald, David (1984-12-21). United Press International" but this doesn't help me locate the reference. Is there a title missing, perchance?
  • Current ref 70 is a scan of the document. I'd prefer to see the link to the newspaper article also given with this reference. What'd the Times say about it's reliablity?
  • Current ref 85 (Re B & G (minors)...) is a court document, but I'm unclear on where exactly this was filed. Also what makes the xenu.net site a reliable source for court documents?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I was under the impression that this was an official Scientology website. Looking more closely, it appears to be either an unofficial or a semi-official pro-Scientology one. I'll try to find a replacement for this citation.
  • The original story didn't have a title. Weird, I know, but there it is.
  • I've added a reference to the newspaper article and the original source of the document (i.e. the Church of Scientology). Above reproductions of the two records, the Times says: "Records detailing L. Ron Hubbard's military service released by the U.S. Navy and the Church of Scientology contain discrepancies." It summarises the two records and adds: "The Department of the Navy says it has no record of the additional decorations the church says Hubbard received." Unfortunately this only appears in the print version; the online version (and copies in newspaper databases) doesn't include the images or the captions in question.
  • The court document is from the Family Law Reports; the citation is in the approved format for this publication. The site is just a convenience link. I've got a hard copy of the same document; it could probably go on Wikisource if needed. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • On the court record, can we expand the FLR into something non-acronymnish for those that aren't up on court publications. I gather this is a published law journal/etc. of some sort? If so, the title of the journal/etc. should go in italics so folks realize that the title. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, I've expanded it. It's not a law journal as such, as far as I can make out (I'm not a lawyer myself), more of a published compilation of judgments. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Good. I'll strike the last one when you get a replacement. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Coggins

Nominator(s): Avi (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I have reviewed the constructive criticism from its first FAC and I have implemented many of the suggested changes, re-ordered some of the sections, copyedited the text, and brought more sources. At this time, I think that it is ready for another critical review as a featured article. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. I added alt text for the first image, to help get you started. Eubulides (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    • done I've added the rest; thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - Prose-wise, word choice needs work.
  • who is best known in the United States for his oil paintings of predominantly marine subjects and for his books on space travel. - remove the second for
    • Corrected. -- Avi (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Coggins wrote and illustrated many books, covering a wide range of subjects, and provided numerous illustrations for advertisements, magazine articles, and magazine covers. - did he cover them or did the books?
    • Removed the "wide range of subjects" phrase. Reads just as well. -- Avi (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • for YANK magazine in the United Kingdom and Europe - do you know which countries, you shouldn't just say a country then continent, it's illogical
    • Good point, removed countries; "war time scenes from front lines" is sufficient. -- Avi (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Coggins produced in excess of 1000 paintings during his long career, and taught master art classes for 45 years - master or Masters?
    • I think both; but removing the master is just as good IMO, so done. -- Avi (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • He retired in May 2001 at nearly 90 years of age and died at his home in Pennsylvania in January 2006. - End should probably read, at the age of 94.
    • Done. -- Avi (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Coggins was born in in his father's military barracks in London, England on July 10, 1911, - His father owned barracks?
    • No, the barracks where his father was stationed. But it is an awkward construction so I'll rewrite it -- Avi (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Coggins enjoyed "fiddling around with drawing" and his family had not discouraged him - Why would his family discourage him? I assume this is close to the source?
    • Quote from outre source, but unnecessary, so removed for smoothness of prose. -- Avi (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Coggins's interest in military subjects was due to his father's military service and his early education in a military school. - Cite?
    • Removed. -- Avi (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Because of the quality of his maritime illustrations, Coggins was invited by publisher Doubleday to provide artwork for a planned children's book about the U.S. Navy. The author was to be Fletcher Pratt, a well known military historian, and the publisher sent Coggins to meet him. Their common interest in maritime history created a lasting friendship and a fruitful association between the two men. - No citations at all
    • Based on Outre and Berks. Re-written for clarity and citations brought. Three or four sentences in a row with a citation at the end means that the entire group of sentences are based on that citation, as opposed to putting the same note after every sentence. -- Avi (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Coggins produced in excess of 1000 paintings during his career. - Almost repeated from the lead, perhaps you could rewrite it?
    • section rewritten. -- Avi (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that sums up my concerns. ceranthor 20:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

  • While there is opportunity for more enhancements, I have reviewed your excellent comments and used them to further enhance the article's content and prose. Thank you, and for the record, done. -- Avi (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments on sources: The Donald H Tuck book is isolated from the other references, for some reason. If there are no citations to it, should it be listed as "Further reading"? Otherwise the sources look sound. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Good point, done. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

  • What makes http://www.askart.com/askart/lists/art_definition.aspx a reliable source?
  • Military Personnel Records, National Personnel Records Center, National Archives, St. Louis, Missouri are these actual published records?
    • That was added by Dcoggins, I believe he either has copies of the original or saw them. I can ask him again. -- Avi (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Dcoggins has scanned copies of the originals. However, I did find the enlistment record in the National Archives and Records Administration database, and linked to that. The overseas and discharge dates must remain sourced to the archives as checked by the paper copies that Dcoggins has. -- Avi (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Likewise Naturalization Records, Southern District Court, New York
    • That was added by Dcoggins, I believe he either has copies of the original or saw them. I can ask him again. -- Avi (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Dcoggins has scanned copies of the originals, but pointed me to a link posted by the Italian Genealogical Group. I did not place that as publisher, as the citation is to the actual records as eyeballed by Dcoggins This is just a WP:Convenience link. -- Avi (talk) 05:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Question, why did you change the publisher tag to work regarding Reading Eagle? Reading Eagle is a newspaper. If you don't mind, I'm switching those back for now. I'll update this section when I get answers from Dcoggins. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Because newspaper titles in references go in italics, and if you put the title in "publisher" it won't be in italics. To get the italics properly you must use the work field. I thought I'd be nice and just do it for you, but instead I can tell you that you need to turn it back if you did so. Newspaper titles go in italics, and the publisher field in {{cite news}} is for the actual company that publishes the newspaper, such as Gannet, Knight-Rider, etc. (and it's not needed either) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I did not know that; I'll correct it now. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry if I sounded cranky. Bruised my knee this morning and the ice packs and the general "keep the leg up" thing is making me crankier than usual. On the two things you're going to email on, you need to know that if the records aren't published or easily available they may not be usable. At the least, they are a concern since they'd be primary sources, so no conclusions should be drawn from them, they should only be cited for bare facts. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    • No problem; get better soon and perhaps ingest some ibuprofen :). As for those two sources, they are only being used for bare facts (enlistment date, date sent to Britain, discharge date, and citizenship date respectively) - no conclusions are being drawn from them. -- Avi (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
      • So that takes care of one part, but the other concern isn't addressed. Can these records really be considered "published"? (And I don't see a link to the military records..) If you can access the actual military records online, then yes, they are published. But if the only way to see them is through a records request at an actual building or through the mail/email, I'd have to be on the fence if this is considered published. It's treading awfully close to original research that historians do, although it's not all the way there. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • For the record, I believe all issues here have been addressed, pending further discussion on AskART. Thank you very much for your comments, corrections, and suggestions! -- Avi (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, that would be a better citation. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Choral symphony

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


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

  • Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. I added alt text for the first image, to help get you started. Eubulides (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Done. Thank you very much for alerting me to this. Jonyungk (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Another welcome nomination by a writer who is likely to raise WP's profile in this field. I've had a go at the lead—please see what you think.
    • I like what you've done with the lead so far. It reads much more smoothly than before. Jonyungk (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • A couple of things apart from the purely micro-technical (including quite a few redundancies and repeat links):
    • "Because the intention was for the choral symphony to remain symphonic (rather than narrative or dramatic), the words were treated symphonically to pursue non-narrative ends, with frequent repetition of important words and phrases, and the transposing, reordering and omission of linguistic passages." The causality (swinging on "Because") works for me, but may I question the opposition created of "symphonic" vs "narrative/dramatic"? I'd have thought it was a fusion, rather than one or the other. Doesn't opera do the same? ("frequent repetition of important words and phrases and transposing, reordering and omission of passages to pursue non-narrative ends"). I do notice a slight tendency in your writing to create binary concepts where it might be safer not to; if I may be so bold, I think this emanates from the sources, and while sources are at the heart of WP's text, we do have the lattitude to pick and choose and interpret a little.
      • You have a very good point. Opera does do the same though the driving force behind an opera remains the overall plot, whereas with the choral symphony the compositional rules governing the symphony take (or should take) precedence. But I have thought through what you are saying about the fusion of symphonic and narrative/dramatic elements and you're essentially right—it is more of a fusion rather than one over the other. I'm open as to how to reword this passage. What about: "The intention was for the choral symphony to remain symphonic, even with its fusion of narrative or dramatic elements that stemmed from the inclusion of words. To this end, the words were treated symphonically to pursue non-narrative ends, with frequent repetition of important words and phrases, and the transposing, reordering and omission of linguistic passages"? Jonyungk (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it's ok. Just one point: a choral symphony can be under the influence of an external narrative even in parts where there is no singing; is that correct? Tony (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
This is correct. Berlioz mentions this and it is covered to some extent under "Programmatic intent" with the two Schnittke symphonies. I've now mentioned this aspect in the lead section and in "General features" but am open to suggestions on how or whether this should be rephrased.Jonyungk (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    • "The text came to determine not only tone, but the basic symphonic outline, while the orchestra maintained an equal share with chorus and soloists in conveying the musical ideas." Will readers know what "tone" means here? Is it to do with the linguistic relationship between writer and listeners? And here, I don't quite get the connection that hangs on "while"—these are two quite different statements, aren't they, and deserve separate sentences. Risky to transmit the idea of "equal share" ... really equal? Perhaps "the orchestra conveyed the musical ideas to a similar extent as chorus and soloists"? I'm unsure, but what is there now is unsafe, I feel. This similarity in contribution is compared with what precursor?
      • I've changed the wording per your suggestion. Jonyungk (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Do watch the "noun plus -ing" constructions, which are usually replaceable by neater grammar ("the first example of a major composer using the human voice"). See these nerdy exercises, on which I'm pleased to receive feedback. The latest edition of the Chicago MOS rightly says that "with" as a connector, can be clumsy, too. Tony (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Oppose on basis of criteria 3:

  • File:Krzysztof Penderecki.jpg: {{PD-Poland}} requires the first publication date and the absence of a copyright notice then, so where was this first published?
    • This image has been removed. Jonyungk (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • File:8th.jpg: similarly, for {{PD-US}} first publishing is required—creation is not publication. When or where was this image first published?
    • I would guess probably sometime close to the premiere as it is obviously a publicity photo. What would be the easiest way of finding out? Jonyungk (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • A search at or contact with the Otto E. Albrecht Music Library could yield results. Jappalang (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I have sent an inquiry to the library and should receive a reply within the next business day. Jonyungk (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • File:1944 Soviet investigators at Babi Yar.jpg: what makes this a public domain image? Who stated it came from the Soviet Archives? The Holocaust Museum certainly does not say so.[29] In fact, it warns that images on its site can be copyrighted.[30] Was it taken by a Soviet? Could it not be a journalist? "In October 1943, as German forces were beginning to retreat from Russian territory, Soviet officials brought a group of foreign reporters to Babi Yar, the ravine outside Kiev in which the Nazis had killed thousands of Jews." per Lipstadt, Deborah, 1993, Beyond Belif, p. 245, Simon & Schuster. Other journalists have visited the site at various times in '43–44.[31][32] Furthermore, this image most likely would not qualify for {{PD-Russia-2008}} or {{PD-Ukraine}}. The photo was taken in 1944, first publishing is unknown, as well as the identity of the photographer.
  • File:Gustav-Mahler-Kohut.jpg: please move this to Wikipedia. 1900 German publication of a 1892 creation means it is possible the creator did not die more than 70 years ago. In fact, this photo was taken by "Berliner Photographie" in 1896.[35] Information from this photo, likely in the same set, points to commons:Creator:E. Bieber and expiration of German copyrights. Jappalang (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • File:OldCity07.JPG: not part of the opposition; the image seems okay, except for the date... EXIF states January 2007, uploader says July 07... Perhaps a clarification with the author is needed? Not a big deal, though (could be wrong setting on the camera, or bad memory...).

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

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

[edit] Edgar Towner

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


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

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

Comments - Generally good.

  • "He named the property "Valparaiso"..." Do we know why? Does it mean something in some foreign language? Not essential to the article by any stretch of the imagination, but it piqued my curiosity.
    • I assumed it meant something along the lines of "paradise", but I haven't been able to either confirm this or identify which language it is in. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • It's Spanish for "Paradise Valley" according to this EyeSerenetalk 08:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Geez, I re-check my sources and use Google Translate but it gives me nothing, then you turn up with this! Lol. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Heh, took me all of 30 seconds to google "meaning of Valparaiso" :D I'm not sure it belongs in the article though (per WP:SYNTH) EyeSerenetalk 09:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Yeah, I'd have to agree. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
              • If there's no source that mentions it in conjunction with Towner, I agree too. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Allocated to the transport section of the 25th Battalion..." I don't know my military terminology very well, but "to allocate" seems an odd verb choice here; very impersonal. "Assigned"?
  • Is the persistent use of "during" in place of "in" (as in "During January...") Australian English? To me, it seems hideously awkward, but I could be wearing North American blinders. I'd already changed most of them by the time this occurred to me, but I'd be happy to change them back if I'm being imperialistic.
    • Hmm, I've been pulled up on this a few times lately. I suppose it is not the best grammatically, but I tire of the consistent repetition of "in". :) However, I should steer away from this; thanks for your corrections. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "...and was allotted to the 7th Brigade's Machine Gun Company." Another verb choice that seems strange to be, like "allocated".
  • Is there more detail available about his Mentions in Despatches? The dates are nice, but I'd think that the reasons are more likely to be of interest to the general reader.
    • The quoted material just before the first mention is why he was Mentioned in Despatches the first time, but I have not been able to conclusively find a recommendation or reason why he was Mentioned the second time. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Okay, we're all limited by our sources.
  • "...after he was unable to raise sufficient funds for livestock." To buy livestock? Feed it? Something else?
  • "He spent the next three years working as a jackaroo, until he entered into a partnership on Kaloola station..." There's nothing wrong with this sentence, but I wanted to single it out for being so delightfully Australian.
  • References all look good.
  • I hate to do this, but File:Edgar Towner full length J03070.JPG and File:E T Towner P02939.035.JPG are both listed as having been taken c. 1918, but are tagged as having been created in Australia for public domain purposes. However, from what I can tell Towner wasn't in Australia at any point during 1918. I'm sure these will work out to be in the public domain one way or another, but we might need to do some more digging. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Even though they were not actually taken in Australia, the Australian public domain tag still applies as the photographs were taken by, or on the behest of, Australian Government employees (military personnel included) and are held/owned by the Australian Government. Thank you very much for the review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I've done some digging and you appear to be correct (the copyright tag on Commons should probably be changed to reflect this, as it currently claims that the work was created in Australia). The photographs appear to be in the public domain in both Australia and the U.S. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Made a few tweaks to address some of the prose issues above. EyeSerenetalk 11:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Eye! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the review, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: Overall I believe that this article meets the criteria. I have the following comments, however:
    • I would suggest tweaking this sentence: "to win the medal during the fighting around Mont St. Quentin and Péronne". Firstly I think it is better to say someone 'received' a Victoria Cross, rather than 'winning'. But that is a personal preference so is not necessarily a requirement. Possibly change it to "the third of six Australians to receive the VC for actions during the fighting around Mont St. Quentin and Peronne". Just a suggestion.
      • I absolutely agree with you; I despise the use of "win/won" in cases where a person has been decorated for their valour/leadership. The word came through during the copy-edit, and I could not come up with a suitable replacement at the time. However, I have now intergrated your wording. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    • some numbers greater than 10 are spelt when they should possibly be converted to numbers per Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Numbers_as_figures_or_words
      • I think that in the few cases in the article it is okay. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    • two external links show in the tool as needing to be checked, however, I have checked them and they both seem to work okay;
      • Yeah, I don't know why but the tool always seems to have a problem with links to the National Archives of Australia, even though they work fine. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] J. C. W. Beckham

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


I have recently expanded this article from a number of sources, and it has had one thorough copyedit by another editor. I believe it meets the criteria for a featured article. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - I fixed the repetitive Beckham... Beckham sentence in the lead. In the future, you don't have to repeat the name, rather, mention the former or the latter, as I did. I think it's more helpful than repeating names in the same sentence. ceranthor 15:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments - This is quite good.

  • I've done some copyediting; please look it over and make sure everything's okay with you.
  • Yeah, this looks fine to me.
  • Both the "Governor of Kentucky" and "U.S. Senator" sections (and by extension the article lead) seem heavily slanted towards how Beckham won those positions at the expense of what he did once he was in them. Is there really no more information on the latter subject? This article isn't really very long for somebody who essentially served two terms as Governor and one as Senator.
  • I've consulted the major sources that I'm aware of. I know most of his first term was devoted to non-controversial issues and attempting to reunite the Democratic party after the disastrous election of 1899, so it isn't surprising that there are few highlights from this term. Interestingly, the Finch article, which is devoted to senators of this time period, devotes only a single paragraph to Beckham's actions as a senator. Apparently, the political machinations behind his elections were much more interesting than what he did in office.
  • I don't know what a "uniform school textbook law" is. I assume it's a law requiring the same textbooks to be used at schools throughout the state, but it could use some elaboration.
  • I'll have to get back to you on this one. Most of the time, this is just referred to as the "uniform textbook law" in the sources I've found, but one of them might have a few more details. I'll have to double-check.
  • "In March 1904, Beckham signed the Day Law mandating segregation of all schools in Kentucky." I assume that this refers to racial segregation, but it should probably be specified.
  • Clarified.
  • "...on the Senate Committee on Military Affairs." Are no dates available for this? It would help balance the dates earlier in the sentence related to his committee chairmanship.
  • Unfortunately, no. The only source that mentions his service on this committee is the FCHQ article by Finch.
  • "The head of the Jockey Club had lost his fortune and influence..." Do we know his name?
  • His name was James B. Brown. I omitted it because it hadn't been mentioned elsewhere and because James Brown is such a common name. However, I've added it per your comment.
  • File:JCW_Beckham.jpg needs some updated information. The source is a broken link, and the copyright tag claims pre-1923 publication without any evidence (though that evidence might be in that broken link). Other images look good.
  • I can't figure out why the link doesn't work. Let me tell you how to get to the image, and maybe you can help.
  1. Go to the Library of Congress web site: www.loc.gov.
  2. Select "Digital Collections" at the top of the page.
  3. Select "Prints and Photographs" (second column, second item)
  4. Select "I understand. I'm ready to search the catalog" (blue button)
  5. Search for "beckham"
  6. On my search, it is the fourth image of six. The title is "BECKHAM, JOHN CREPPS WICKLIFFE. SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY, 1915-1921" and the given date is 1915.
  7. When I select the link, the URL in my address bar is the one given at File:JCW_Beckham.jpg. But that link doesn't seem to work directly. Any suggestions?
  • Sourcing looks good, links checked using linkchecker tool (are people other than Ealdgyth allowed to say that?). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 06:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fertilisation of Orchids

Nominator(s): dave souza, talk 10:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because it's about a fascinating subject, has reached Good article standard, and is timely in relation to the approaching 150th anniversary of publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species... dave souza, talk 10:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Done. The images need alt text as per WP:ALT and WP:FACR #3. I just now added alt text for the lead image (that was an easy one!) but the others still need it. Eubulides (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, have added alt text to all the images, with the exception of the gallery of scans of illustrations of the book as the text was not hidden when I tried it. . . dave souza, talk 20:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I tried to improve that alt text a bit. The gallery's images are all links so they all need alt text, I'm afraid. But now I'm puzzled: why not remove the gallery? All but one of its images already appear in the article, and the remaining image (Fig. 28) isn't enough to justify a gallery. Instead of the gallery, how about putting "{{Commons|Category:Fertilisation of Orchids|Fertilisation of Orchids}}" near the end of the article? Eubulides (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for improving the alt text. The original scans are attractive, but for purposes of illustration I cropped the scans and changed the levels with the aim of giving clearer information, making the background whiter. There was a hope that more of the illustrations would be scanned, but that hasn't happened yet. So, it seemed a nice idea to give a pointer to the available images, but the category button would suffice. Unless there's some support for the idea of the gallery, will change it. . . dave souza, talk 22:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
No further comment so I changed it to the category button. Eubulides (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Remark - it would be good if there was a link to an audiobook for the book. keep up w/ the times. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I think this is a wonderful article. Although I did some copy editing on it, that is not the basis of my support. I think it combines fundamental , scientific information with a narrative style that is authoritative, yet enticing to the reader. Perhaps this is what is meant by "brilliant prose"! The author has been conscientious in attempting to comply with all standards. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Stewart (Canadian politician)

Nominator(s): Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


This is a boring article about a boring man who did some boring things. I'm bothering with it only because I'm trying to make Premiers of Alberta into a featured topic. On the upside, the article is quite short. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Charles_Stewart.jpg - It is unclear how this images is PD Fasach Nua (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Per the tag, it's in the public domain because its creator died more than 50 years ago (in 1938, to be exact). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
At least, that's why it's in the public domain in Canada. It's in the public domain in the United States because it was in the public domain in Canada as of January 1, 1996. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments Another finely written article. I really only have two concerns:
  • The description of Stewart's relationship with UFA as being "frosty" seemed a bit odd. It's stated that he was a member of UFA, opposed their politicization, but that he still worked well with them after, and that UFA refused to run a candidate against him, or attack his government. Suddenly, as a federal minister, his relationship seems much worse, and full of ill will. There appears to be a gap here where the relationship turned sour. Or, perhaps, a little clarification that his relationship with the Farmers' government deteriorated upon becoming a federal minister?
  • His post-political career seems mighty thin. Is there nothing that can be said of his participation with the organizations he chaired? Or any private business ventures? Resolute 01:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • To your first point, good point. Does this help? Part of the problem is that there's no source that comprehensively covers his relationship with the UFA as Premier and as federal cabinet minister: Jaques and Thomas don't deal with his federal career in any detail, while Foster and Wardhaugh don't say much about his career as Premier. Reading between the lines, I think he felt a little betrayed that the UFA sought to replace his government after he'd been so accommodating towards them. To your second point, I haven't been able to find anything, and at this point I'm not sure where to look (I'm almost certain it would have to be in primary sources of some kind). Note that by the time he left politics he was close to seventy; I surmise that he wasn't all that active post-retirement, though that's just a guess. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I think on the first point, it's the word "remained" that I object to. It implies a degradation of a relationship that isn't explained beforehand. Probably just changing it to "his relationship with the UFA was frosty..." As to the second, I can't imagine the needle in a haystack that searching through newspapers would be, with the possible exception of checking after the date of his death for an obit that might add more. It is an odd section though. In short, it says "Stewart sat on two councils then died" in the first paragraph, while the second is a one sentence rehash of the entire article. Now THAT is summary style!  ;) Resolute 03:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've replaced "remained" with "were", and inserted one more sentence (literally the only one I could find in any of my sources) in the section on his later life. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I'm satisfied with the article's quality and comprehensiveness. All images are PD, references look good to me. Resolute 03:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment on sources: all sources look good. Brianboulton (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Bosworth Field

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

SCENE I. FAC.

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

Jappalang

Now comes the test of Bosworth's quality
Made glorious by all who laid pen upon it.
In days past, it was not shaped for critical thought,
Nor made to court the public's eye;
Deformed, unfinished, abandoned before its time
Into this project, scarce half completed,
Now this article aspires to comply
With all four featured criteria.
If you do replace a wrongful image;
You shall feel a sense of justice, the travesty gone,
If you do improve a dreadful sentence;
Your friends shall sing the litanies of sweet prose,
If you do help to fill in the blanks;
Your great deed increases the world's sum of knowledge,
If you do chop off redundant words;
Your trusty sword serves the project well.
Then, for Wikipedia and free information's sake,
Stretch your fingers, draw your red pens.
Tap keys and scroll pages, boldy and cheerfully;
Jimbo and Saint Isidore! Bosworth and FA!

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

Comments by Dweller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will consider the length (and detail) of the lede. Any suggestions where to place the map? Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I have shifted the map into the Background section. Jappalang (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Lead trimmed further... EyeSerenetalk 14:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no remaining issues with lead or map. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, who wrote this? Mostly beautiful or very professional prose, although I've looked only at the lead. This sentence is a little weak: "Literature, from the 15th to 18th centuries, glamorised the conflict as a victory of good over evil—it forms the finale of William Shakespeare's play about Richard's rise and fall." (All literature? Many English plays and poems? I think User:Bishonen is an expert on this area, inter alia, BTW. (2) The dash doesn't quite work as a connector for me ("and"?). I look forward to reading the rest. (3) Just a little audit on the use or omission of commas before and after names in the middle of clauses? Unsure. Tony (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    To Tony: GrahamColm, Malleus Fatuorum and others have brushed up little bits here and there, but EyeSerene is responsible for most of the beauty that is at hand. Jappalang (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    I think Jappalang's overstating my involvement, although his kind words are much appreciated. However, I freely admit to something of a blind spot over commas because I can't always decide if a sentence reads more naturally with or without them. I'll proofread when I get the chance and try to tidy them up. EyeSerenetalk 09:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

More stuff

  • Commanders: Intro, last sentence - "In a sense" doesn't seem necessary.
  • Yorkist
    • "Small and slender, Richard III did not have the tall muscular build associated with many of his Plantagenet predecessors." First three words redundant - Richard' size fully covered by the rest of the sentence.
      • I was trying to point out specifically that Richard was a "small and slender" man. I think striking these three words could result in a possible "well, he is not tall and muscular, perhaps he is just normal sized or short and flabby?" kind of thought? Jappalang (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, how about: "Small and slender in contrast to the tall muscular build associated with many of his Plantagenet predecessors,[40] Richard nevertheless enjoyed rough sports and activities that were considered manly." Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Tweaked EyeSerenetalk 09:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    • "His performance better as "His performances..."
    • "Lieutenant general" is a military rank rather than a post, though it might have meant something different then. Can you amplify?
    • Last sentence of first paragraph reads oddly, given that in the previous sentence Richard has been painted as somewhat irresolute. And why the reference to the Turks?
I've seen the revision. This looks like a sentence that should start "However,..." Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Darn... I was aiming to show that Richard was a militaristic man with that statement. Hence, this statement is not supposed to contradict or support Ross' or Carpenter's opinion but rather expand on Richard's attitude (a contrast to the seemingly pacifistic Henry). Any suggestions on how to reword this to get the meaning across? Jappalang (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd still go for the "However..." beginning. At present, in paraphrase, this extract is saying: "Richard had been considered by some as a bit of a military ditherer, somewhat indecisive. However, when he became king he showed a different side" (his "thirst for war" etc. This is not a sticking point, so go with what you decide. Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Also tweaked (missed your responses to Jappalang's latest, so my tweaks were made before I saw your latest. Hope they're ok) EyeSerenetalk 09:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Lancastrian
    • "Slender but strong, Henry lacked a penchant for battle and was not much of a warrior; chroniclers such as Polydore Vergil and Pedro de Ayala found him a decisive man who was more interested in commerce." I think this sentence would read better if Henry's "decisive" attribute was listed with his other positive qualities, thus: "Slender but strong and decisive, Henry lacked a penchant for battle and was not much of a warrior; chroniclers such as Polydore Vergil and Pedro de Ayala found him more interested in commerce."
    • "whom he could rely on" → "on whom he could rely"
  • Stanleys
    • "erupted in bouts of violence" - a bit heavy-footed. "erupted into violence"?
    • "Additionally, Stanley's position as Henry Tudor's stepfather, having taken Lady Margaret as his second wife in June 1472,[69] did him nothing to win Richard's favour." Suspect grammar: "having taken" relates to Stanley, not "Stanley's position." Also, phrase order seems wrong, and can we avoid beginning "Additionally..."? So how about: "Furthermore, having taken Lady Margaret as his second wife in June 1472, Stanley was Henry Tudor's stepfather, a relationship which did him nothing to win Richard's favour."
    • "Wary of the baron..." I've lost track of the identity of this baron.
  • Prelude
    • The comparison in the first sentence is amiss – between the first invasion and the second crossing. Suggest first four words are deleted.
    • Sir Geoffrey Elton – use of title inappropraite in text
    • Does Elton use the word "idolators"? If so, I suggest you put it in quotes, as it's an odd term. Otherwise I think it is too strong a word here, since it suggests veneration and worship. Another term, such as "ardent loyalists", might be more appropriate.
    • "...failed to move against him" – need to clarify "him"
    • Do you really mean "suborned", here? (incited to commit a crime)
    • I am confused by this sentence: "Richard had been aware of Henry's landing since 11 August, but although he had ordered his lords to maintain a high level of readiness, it took three to four days for his messengers to notify them of Richard's mobilisation." Some clarification requested.
I've done a little extra ce on this - see if you agree. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
It is fine. Jappalang (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Engagement: a superb battle account; only one minor point: "Well aware of his military inexperience, Henry handed command of his army to Oxford..." Needs to say "own military experience", for clarity.
  • Post-Battle
    • Suggest link circlet, or descibe it as a crown
    • "100 of his king's men" would be clearer as "100 of Henry's men"
    • I wonder if the events described in the final paragraph can really be considered "Post-battle"?
I note what you say below. The events seem to relate more to the early part of Henry's reign, rather than the immediate post-battle period. For example, in an article on the Battle of Hastings you probably wouldn't refer to William's subsequent suppression of Hereward the Wake. This is just a thought, not a sticking point with me; if you wish to leave it, fair enough. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

A few last bits

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

Final Comment: This is a first-class article which tells its main story brilliantly, with much thoughtful analysis thereafter. I have moved to full support no