Having examined other featured articles for sculptures, I think this article passes FA criteria. The article has received a copy edit by the GOCE and was reviewed for Good article status. I have conducted thorough research and believe the article incorporates all of the sources I could find about the subject. I welcome your feedback and will do my best to address all concerns. Thank you for your time. --Another Believer(Talk) 04:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. I did the GOCE copyedit, and I've done some more now that it's an FAC. A nice, short article. I do have some comments that won't affect my support:
The article's a forest of inline cites—have you ever seen WP:BUNDLING?
I'm not sure the lead needs to list eight things it's been called: "bizarre", "eccentric", "playful", "unique", "wacky", "whimsical", "zany" and a "piece of wizardry". I might drop them entirely and paraphrase.
"Grant Butler of The Oregonian gave the machine's trumpet fanfare as one of three examples ways in which people could be certain it was noon in Portland.": since the article's so short anyways, why name not the other two things? Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I need to track down this source again. Doing... --Another Believer(Talk) 21:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey: I am not sure the other two are worth including. Following are the three ways: 1) "There are those ethereal carillon bells clanging out show tunes from who-knows-where ("If I Were a Rich Man" on the bells! Who knew?)", 2) "the Weather Machine in Pioneer Courthouse Square trumpets the next day's forecast", and 3) "the line for the Saigon Kitchen cart in front of the Portland Building snakes a dozen deep down the street." One seems vague and the other seems promotional at worst, or completely unrelated to the subject at best. If you disagree, I can try to come up with a way to incorporate the details into the article. --Another Believer(Talk) 15:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Jim Nice article, the following are very minor quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Omen Design Group Inc.,—the full stop-comma combination looks odd to me, but I'm a Brit, feel free to ignore
in Portland, Oregon, in the United States. Two thousand people attended its dedication, which was broadcast live nationally—suggest in Portland, Oregon. Two thousand people attended its dedication, which was broadcast live nationally in the US. It's reasonable to expect people to know that Oregon is in the US, but I feel that the first instance of "nationally" should generally actually give the nation. If you don't like this version, I still think you should lose in the United States
Updated accordingly, though personally I prefer the former wording. --Another Believer(Talk) 16:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Reverted to previous wording, which I prefer and believe is consistent with similar articles. --Another Believer(Talk) 16:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
indicated a temperature of 82 °F (28 °C).—Although you give a conversion, I'm not clear whether the installation actually shows international units as well as US
I do not believe international units are displayed, but I am not sure how to address this concern. I did, however, add °F, so that should allow readers to assume °C are not also displayed. --Another Believer(Talk) 16:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was me who added the conversion. It didn't cross my mind that it could be seen to imply that °C is also displayed. If it comes across that way, then I suppose the conversion should be removed. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I remember seeing the Gastown steam clock in Vancouver last year. Is this penchant for semi-practical installations a Pacific NW peculiarity?
No idea, and I did not come across any sources connecting the Weather Machine to other clocks or weather contraptions. --Another Believer(Talk) 16:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your assistance and for taking time to review the article. Please let me know if any of your concerns still need to be addressed. --Another Believer(Talk) 16:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy that this reaches the FA standard, changed to support above. With regard to the Oregon, USA comment, you are not obliged to follow a reviewer's style suggestions, if you really prefer the original, change it back. One final point; my understanding is that you shouldn't put the article's title in image captions because it's assumed the image is depicting the subject of the article unless otherwise stated. I'll leave that with you Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. I went ahead and reverted the wording back to the previous version, both because that is my preference and because I believe it is consistent with many similar articles I have read. Also, I removed the name of the sculpture from the caption and replaced it with simply "The sculpture". Thanks again! --Another Believer(Talk) 16:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Direct quotes should be cited immediately in the lead, per WP:LEADCITE
Be consistent in if/when you include publisher and location for newspapers
I include them whenever they are known, though in the past I have been asked not to include New York City as the location for The New York Times as that is so obvious and well-known. I don't mind adding the location to those references, if you prefer. Or, are there specific references would would like me to revisit? --Another Believer(Talk) 18:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I figured LiveStrong is a very well-known and reliable nonprofit organization. Plus the source is being used very generally, simply to note that the subject is sometimes recommended as a "thing to see" in Portland. This source is grouped with another visitor guide, so it is not even being used on its own to cite specific facts. If you prefer that it be removed, no problem. --Another Believer(Talk) 18:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Livestrong itself is reliable; however, that particular page is produced by Demand Media, an organization that employs freelance writers and editors of varying credentials. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Her bio on the website says her articles have appeared in "ConsumerSearch.com, USA TODAY, Dremel.com and other websites". I would say I am not too concerned about its reliability given how the reference is being used in such a general manner. That being said, I would not be offended if asked to simply remove the source if it does not meet standards. --Another Believer(Talk) 04:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Images - There is no freedom of panorama in the US for artworks. See Commons:Freedom of panorama. Cloud Gate is a featured article on a sculpture in the US and tags the images as non-free. - hahnchen 23:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. The external design of the sculpture is copyrighted, so any photograph of the sculpture is a derivative work. Even if the photo itself is released under a free license, we have to treat such a photo as non-free. I have nominated all three images for deletion on Commons. It is certainly possible that one of the photos could be copied here and used under a "fair use" claim, so long as it complies with our non-free content policy. (Use a free license for the photograph, and {{non-free 3D art}} for the underlying sculpture.) But it is unlikely that more than one such photo can be used, since that would violate NFCC#3a. – Quadell(talk) 20:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Quadell: Thanks for the info. Not that I want my images to be deleted, especially the Occupy Portland ones, since the sculpture is not the main subject of the images, but only a couple of the images at Commons have been nominated for deletion. You might want to tag some of the others as well, or at least note them in one of the ongoing discussions. I'd rather address them all at once than sporadically. --Another Believer(Talk) 23:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding the Cloud Gate example, I thought only one non-free image could be used to illustrate a subject. The Cloud Gate article has multiple images... I don't understand, but I appreciate help with images during my attempt to promote this article to Featured status. --Another Believer(Talk) 23:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Replied on user's talk page.) – Quadell(talk) 23:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few alternations of the text for smoothness of prose. If you disagree with any of these, feel free to revert and discuss.
I agree with all of your edits, except one. I changed "Grimm's" to "his" since his name already appears in the sentence. Plus, there are two Grimms (husbands and wife), so this removes confusion. Let me know if you disagree. Thanks. --Another Believer(Talk) 19:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that this article has geolocation coordinates, and that they are not simply copied from the Pioneer Courthouse Square article. That's great. Does there exist (or can there easily be made) a free map of where this sculpture is located in the square, or in Portland in general?
The "infobox artwork" template does not include a map option like the National Register of Historic Places template does (see Yale Union Laundry Building), as far as I know. I wish it did, for permanently installed works. I do not know how to include a similar map outside an infobox. That being said, I agree it would be ideal to have a pin illustrate the location of the sculpture within Portland. Also, I wish there were a free map of Pioneer Courthouse Square, but I wouldn't even know where to begin with making one... Is there a place to request assistance from Open Street Map? --Another Believer(Talk) 19:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about Open Street Map. Does anyone here know? I do notice that, although {{infobox artwork}} does not have a pushpin map option, both {{infobox monument}} and the strangely-named (but possibly appropriate) {{Infobox Big Thing}} do have pushpin map options. Would you be willing to use either of those? – Quadell(talk) 20:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I converted to the infobox for monuments, using the same parameter entries, but there is now an error. I cannot tell if the error is due to dimension parameter(s) or the coordinates parameter... I would not consider the sculpture a monument, but perhaps people are not picky about which infobox is being used as long as the display works? --Another Believer(Talk) 21:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed it. I don't think it matters what the infobox is called, just so long as the information it provides is correct. – Quadell(talk) 21:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thank you. I am fine with the current infobox. --Another Believer(Talk) 21:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article sometimes uses a serial comma (as in "a trumpet fanfare, mist, and flashing lights" or "the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, David Pugh, and Standard Insurance Company"), but sometimes omits it (as in the lists of descriptive adjectives in the lead and Reception section). Either choice is fine, but the article should be consistent in whether or not serial commas are used.
This is not required, but I think the lead's "During its daily two-minute sequence..." sentence could be improved. The semicolons could be replaced by commas (if "clear, sunny weather" is replaced by "clear and sunny weather") and I think this would make the entire sentence more approachable. (This is also true for the corresponding sentence in "Description and history".)
If there exist different estimates for the machine's height, I think it would be better if there was a single citation which bundles and explains the various sources' estimates.
I would agree, except that there is not a single source that provides a height range. Various sources include different heights. --Another Believer(Talk) 23:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think the bundled footnote should say that. (c.f. footnote 2 in Georg Forster) – Quadell(talk) 23:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What would the footnote say that the prose does not? Also, all three of the sources are used multiple times throughout the article. Can one citation represent multiple sources that are used multiple times? I know how to put together bundles (see current references 32 and 33), but I have never seen this done with multiple sources that are used multiple times. --Another Believer(Talk) 23:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are ways it could be handled. The explanation of each source's estimate could be given in a footnote, in a separated "Footnotes" section, and the footnote could be referenced from there like any other text. (See this FA candidate for an example of how this is done.) But now that I think on it, I don't suppose this is necessary; the current version does give accurate information, and it's reliably sourced. I have my personal preferences, but I guess the way it's currently handled is not an impediment to FA status. – Quadell(talk) 02:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't clear to me how O'Donnell, his osteomyelitis, or his jig, "inspired" this machine.
You know, I agree, and this is not the first time this question has been asked. The thing is, I am going by what the sources say exactly... that he and his jig inspired the work, but with no additional detail. I wish that were not the case, but I can assure you I would provide further explanation if it were offered. --Another Believer(Talk) 23:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, I guess you can't give more information than the sources provide. If that's the state of the info provided by the RSes, then that'll have to be good enough. – Quadell(talk) 23:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When the article mentions "square employees", I imagine hard-working, square-shaped folks. :) More seriously, since Pioneer Courthouse Square is a public space, I'm not sure what the label is supposed to mean.
"Square" is capitalized, referring to previously mentioned Pioneer Courthouse Square. I am not sure of the relationship between PCS and Portland Parks & Recreation, but PCS is at least partially an independent entity. They have their own website and 501(c)(3) non-profit organization status. The article also mentions PCS's executive director, so staff are clearly involved here as well. --Another Believer(Talk) 23:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, well, that brings up several issues. (1) In the second use of "Square employees", in paragraph 3 of Description and history, the phrase begins a sentence, so there's no way to know if it's capitalized or not. That's the instance I was looking at when I brought this up. (2) I don't think "square" should be capitalized when the full proper name isn't given. Just as employees of Carson City are lower-case-c city employees, and actors in Scary Movie are lower-case-m movie actors, so employees of Pioneer Courthouse Square would be lower-case-s square employees, it seems to me. (3) I can't see the source; are they referred to as employees of the square in the source? (4) If so, would the wording "employees of the square", or perhaps "employees of Pioneer Courthouse Square", work for you? – Quadell(talk) 23:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "See also" list deserves close inspection. Allow Me (Portland, Oregon) is clearly relevant, being another iconic sculpture in the same square. But since Weather Machine serves as a weather beacon and is a piece of lumino kinetic art, I think it would be better to include those links in the article body itself, rather than in the See also section. Perhaps the first sentence (outside the lead) could be reworded to this: "Weather Machine is a lumino-kineticbronze sculpture that serves as a weather beacon, designed and constructed by Omen Design Group Inc." What would you think of that? In addition, I personally don't believe that interactive art, sound installation, or Standard Plaza are related enough topics to deserve to be linked in the See also section.
Great. The article now reads: "Weather Machine is a lumino-kinetic bronze sculpture and columnar machine that serves as a weather beacon, displaying a weather prediction each day at noon. Designed and constructed by Omen Design Group Inc., the approximately 30-foot (9 m) tall sculpture was installed in 1988..." --Another Believer(Talk) 19:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good, but compare the description in the lead with the one in the "Description and history" section, and make sure they give appropriate levels of detail. – Quadell(talk) 20:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% certain of this, but it seems odd to me for the Oregonian's ISSN (8750-1317) to be repeated in every Oregonian citation. Is that needed? (Besides this, the references all seem to be formatted correctly.)
Question: The body says that the sculpture took five years to complete, but I found no actual start date. Would it be helpful to include "c. 1983" in the infobox parameter for the start date? --Another Believer(Talk) 21:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I would do. – Quadell(talk) 21:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: You moved the bit about the machine costing $60,000, which is fine. However, there are now two citations of the same source immediately following one another. May I remove the one following "build" since the same source is used three words (or two words and one number) later? --Another Believer(Talk) 23:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I missed that. You're right, it would be better to merge those. – Quadell(talk) 23:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there another term for "wind scoop"? (Wikipedia's first search hit for that term is this very article.) Is anemometer correct?
I never came across "anemometer" in my research, and remember reading "wind scoop" multiple times. Would it help if I linked "wind scoop" to "anemometer", without using the word itself? I don't think the sculpture has two bronze anemometers, but perhaps the two bronze wind scoops function as a anemometer. (?) --Another Believer(Talk) 18:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I wasn't sure the best way to handle this, but your suggestion of linking "wind scoop" to anemometer sounds like the best solution. – Quadell(talk) 19:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be clear which source provides these direct quotes: "funny Irish jig", "fierce, open-mouthed", "gleaming gold-leaf sun", "semismoggy", and "Practical people may wonder...". Further, it isn't clear which source cites "unique" and which cites "wacky" in the lead, and which cites "zany" and which cites "piece of wizardry" in the Reception section. I also think the direct quote for "lunchtime waiver" is not needed; it could simply be reworded as something like "due to a waiver of Portland's noise ordinance for that time period".
I disagree. I think it looks better to have two citations at the end of the sentence than "quote"[ref] and "quote".[ref]. According to Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Text-source_integrity, "The distance between material and its source is a matter of editorial judgment... Including too many citations within a sentence may be aesthetically unappealing... So consider placing them at a more aesthetically appealing location." In these cases, it would not be difficult for a reader to determine which of the two citations at the end of the sentence verifies the information. For all of these quotations, a reference immediately follows the end of the phrase or sentence, even if there are two citations. I am not trying to get out of work here. I just think it looks better as is. Let me know if you feel strongly otherwise and I am happy to get to work. --Another Believer(Talk) 22:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it can pass the FA criteria without a change here. For instance, the article mentions a "funny Irish jig", without saying who is being quoted, and the citations don't make clear where the quote comes from. The criteria say that Wikipedia:When to cite should be followed, and while that page says "The distance between material and its source is a matter of editorial judgment", it also says "The source of the material should always be clear", and the source is not clear in the above instances. – Quadell(talk) 23:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Addressed "unique" and "wacky" in the lead, "fierce, open-mouthed", "gleaming gold-leaf sun", "semismoggy", "zany" and "piece of wizardry". Regarding "Practical people may wonder...", the quote appears in both sources, hence the two citations. --Another Believer(Talk) 16:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I addressed the "lunchtime waiver" issue. --Another Believer(Talk) 22:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the parenthetical aside in "It also indicates the temperature (twenty degrees or above)". First off, I assume you mean Fahrenheit, but you should say so. Secondly, do you mean that no lights are displayed when the temperature is below 20? Or that it doesn't distinguish temperatures below that? Or that it only indicates in 20-degree increments? I would think blue lights mean the temperature is below 32, so how could 20 degrees even be shown? Some clarification would be useful.
The Fahrenheit concern has been addressed. More to come... --Another Believer(Talk) 23:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure the scale starts at 20 degrees F. There is a series of blue lights at the bottom, which represents 20-32 degrees. --Another Believer(Talk) 2:12 pm, Today (UTC−5)
I hope my reword is okay. – Quadell(talk) 19:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How did the lights indicate a temperature of 82 °F in its first run? Does this mean there were five red lights, indicating 50 degrees above 32? If so, that's fine, no change is needed... but if the sculpture gives more information than I'd understood, then maybe more explanation is needed in the article.
So, the sources do not really explain this. This is totally original research, but I went and examined the sculpture up close just moments ago. There is a series of blue lights at the bottom, which represents 20-32 degrees. Then, there is a light pattern, going vertically upward, of 4 white lights then a red light... 4 white lights then a red light. This means increments of two degrees, and each red light represents a ten degree increment. I assume 82 degrees would mean lights all the way up (including several red lights marking ten-degree increments), topped by a single white light represent the two degrees above 80).--Another Believer(Talk) 2:12 pm, Today (UTC−5)
I just re-read the lights section in the article, and although it may not be the most intuitive prose, it does seem factually accurate. --Another Believer(Talk) 2:14 pm, Today (UTC−5)
Similarly, I don't understand the Oregonian writer's comment: "you don't want to breathe so much when the white light is on". The only white light mentioned indicates that the temperature is above freezing.
Right. In my writing, I was attempting to note the ambiguity. I noted what the colors represent, then said: "However, 1998 one writer for The Oregonian warned: "you don't want to breathe so much when the white light is on". Perhaps the colors changed at one point? I just wanted to report what the sources stated without synthesizing improperly or conducting original research. I figured noting the three colors, but including a "however" statement would accomplish this. If you can think of better wording, please let me know. --Another Believer(Talk) 16:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's tricky. It's frustrating when the RSes say things that don't make a whole lot of sense when compared. It's possible that the red bulb had come off, leaving the light white. Or it's possible that either Garcia or Hortsch got the colors wrong. Any statement you could make to clarify things would look like OR. I'm not sure the best way to handle it, and seeing as how I can't think of a better suggestion, I'll strike this from the list of needed changes. – Quadell(talk) 19:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know if the machine is back up and running? The last source indicated that it was down, but expected to go back into operation shortly. The text implies, but does not state, that the machine again became operational.
I think the current wording does imply that the machine was only down for one week due to a malfunction. --Another Believer(Talk) 19:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source basically says "It's down, and it's expected to be back up within the week." It would be ideal if some other source let us know if the presumed recovery happened. (Then again, if there's not such a source, well, the prose represents the facts about as well as could be expected.) 20:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I Googled and searched newspaper archives to death. If such an article exists, it certainly knows how to hide well... --Another Believer(Talk) 20:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the "Americans for the Arts" PDF link is warranted in the "External links". We already have free images that show this, and the brochure doesn't discuss the sculpture directly.
I am going to leave this link for now, unless you feel strongly otherwise, at least until the image issue is addressed. --Another Believer(Talk) 19:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree, it'll be clearer how to best deal with this once the image issues are resolved. – Quadell(talk) 19:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, it looks very likely that the first 2 images will be deleted from Commons, and that both will be acceptable on en.wiki in this article under our NFCC. The third image may or may not be deemed acceptable on Commons, we'll see. But I'll work on moving the first two to en.wiki this weekend. – Quadell(talk) 20:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your assistance with the images. Between the non-free and free images, we should have plenty to illustrate the article. --Another Believer(Talk) 20:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Late addition: I still don't think the link is necessary or very useful, but I also don't think it's an impediment to FA status. – Quadell(talk) 19:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have ported File:PioneerSquareWeatherMachine.jpg and File:Weather Machine - Portland, Oregon (2013) - 02.JPG to Wikipedia here, and I've included non-free use rationales. In my opinion, there are no further problems with these images. The third image, File:Occupy Portland (Downtown PDX).jpg is on Commons. If it's deleted there, we'll have to remove it from this article, but I don't think that will be a problem. I also suspect it will be kept on Commons. Commons deletion nominations are slow, and it is possible that it will take a couple months for them to decide, but I don't see why that should hold up this FAC. – Quadell(talk) 19:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support. I expect to fully support once the image use is reasonably clear and stable, which should be soon. – Quadell(talk) 20:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help! I believe the collaborative process has worked well here, and this article has improved greatly by going through the FAC process. Looking forward to having the image situation settled. --Another Believer(Talk) 20:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All my concerns have been addressed. This article fulfills all our FA criteria, and should be featured. – Quadell(talk) 19:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(end of Comments by Quadell)
Question: Does the blue heron symbol justify Category:Birds in art? I don't believe similar categories exist for the sun or dragons. --Another Believer(Talk) 01:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say no, personally, but it's a gray area. – Quadell(talk) 19:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Of their "substantial" donation, Pete said: "We're glad to do it. We think it will contribute to the atmosphere of the city."" You know, I'm not sure we care, given that Pete is not a notable person in his own right, and the comment he makes is awfully bland. It doesn't seem to say anything interesting, and is only witty at quite a stretch. I suggest the final sentences be revised to read:
^Cite error: The named reference Bella was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Filips, Janet (October 2, 1988). "Developer 'Pete' Mark Puts Portland First: Making a Mark". The Oregonian. Portland, Oregon. p. L01.
^Garcia, Edwin (September 1, 1988). "If You Don't Know What the Weather's Like, Come to the Square". The Oregonian. Portland, Oregon. p. B02.
Two lines apart we have "...a stylized golden sun ("helia")..." and then ""Helia", described as a "gleaming gold-leaf sun"..." This seems repetitive. Tell us once, and then leave it.
Done. Well, I kept ""Helia", described as a "gleaming",…" I do not think this piece of the sentence is redundant. --Another Believer(Talk) 21:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...her design would later be applied to one of her husband's pots, which was displayed at the Pauling Center of Clackamas Community College in 1989." This appears again to me to be very trivial, given that neither Jere Grimm, husband Ray, the Pauling Centre, the Clackamas College or, indeed, the pot, are notable themselves. If it was an award winning pot, it would be OK; if the pot was acquired by a notable public art collection, likewise. But this could just be a flower pot that they then put in their yard.
So it is not relevant in any way that the design was repeated in another work of art? Perhaps this is too much detail, but should a more general, shortened sentence be included? --21:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
What about the following: ""Helia", described as "gleaming", was designed by Jere Grimm; her design would later be applied to one of her husband's pots, exhibited in 1989."? --Another Believer(Talk) 21:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that compromise is a good improvement. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"In order for the machine to display an accurate weather prediction, as reported by The Oregonian in 1988, employees of Pioneer Courthouse Square contact the National Weather Service each morning at 10:30 a.m. for the forecast, and then enter information into the machine's computer, located within a nearby door." Well, that was how it was done twenty-five years ago. Computers have come a fair way since then. Is this still how it occurs? If we don't know, then perhaps change the present tense and re-work it thus: "In order for the machine to display an accurate weather prediction, employees of Pioneer Courthouse Square contacted the National Weather Service each morning at 10:30 a.m. for the forecast, and then entered information into the machine's computer, located within a nearby door." or similar.
I changed the tense, but left the detail about this being reported by The Oregonian in 1988. I agree that this process has probably changed over time, but we do not have details about the current process. Therefore, I think we should leave the date and change the tense. (Also, I changed "within" to "behind".) --Another Believer(Talk) 21:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which brings me to another thing. Is the computer really located inside the fabric of a door?? That's...strange. Are you sure it doesn't mean behind a door?
I've noted the image deletion discussion, and recognise that the Occupy protest image may be the only one to survive as free - but it isn't a great picture, and I'm just not sure if it meets FA threshholds for illustration of an article. But at least one fair use image should be OK.
So, are you asking that I remove the Occupy Portland image? I will say, I do think it does a good job of giving some perspective. The image currently in the infobox is great, but it does not show scale. I do not feel strongly against removing the image if it does not meet criteria, but I do think it has some purpose. --Another Believer(Talk) 21:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the circumstances, it's probably best kept, but i just wondered if others might object to its quality, given this is FAC. But if it is the only free-use image, then that strengthens the case for its retention. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A well-researched bit of quirk. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, bumping this to the top of my watchlist. Life has been so busy this week, but with three support votes I am not giving up! Still doing... --Another Believer(Talk) 22:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't been at a computer for a couple of days. Support. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support, and for taking time to review the article and offer suggestions for improvement. --Another Believer(Talk) 16:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The first, and so far only, named Danish dinosaur. So it kind of has sentimental value to me, as a dinosaur geek from Denmark. I've created all but one of the images in the article, and I consulted the author as well as the finder of the fossil when I drew the restoration. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). Always nice to see such a high quality article on an educational and encyclopedic topic. Short n sweet. Covers major aspects with good organizational structure. Meticulous use of sourcing throughout, to WP:RS sources. Also, SCIENCE!!! — Cirt (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I just added the upload date for the image. FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fascinating article, well-organized, with clear prose. I've listed some issues and suggestions below.
Images: I concur with Cirt, that all images are legitimately in the public domain and have all required information present. But I have to double-check: Did you draw/paint File:Dromaeosauroides.jpg yourself? It's quite impressive.
Yeah, thanks, I'm a professional animator in real life, which comes in handy when a restoration is needed here! FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's some amazing work. I'm truly impressed. – Quadell(talk) 17:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Images: Thank you for providing the photos of the teeth, but I must admit, they are of relatively low quality. Do you live near this display (the Geological Museum in Copenhagen)? Is there any way you could provide clearer photos? This isn't an FA requirement, but I wanted to ask. (In contrast, your Dromaeosaurus skull photo is crystal clear.)
I took both photos with the same camera, the problem is that both are behind glass, but the tooth was much further away, and much smaller, so it didn't turn out so good. But I'll add it if I take a better photo. Same with the other tooth and the track. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I've never been to Bornholm, but if I go there, I'll try to get a photo of the actual teeth. FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Style and Accuracy: The country of Denmark is mentioned three times in the first four sentences of the lead. I don't think all these mentions are appropriate. I especially question whether Dromaeosauroides can accurately be said to be "the first known dinosaur from Denmark" or "from the Early Cretaceous of Denmark". After all, Denmark is a modern country that didn't exist at the time. (Besides, it's unlikely that Dromaeosauroides species only lived within the borders of modern Denmark.) You could say that the genus is from the Scandinavian region, or from the European continent, or that its remains have been found only within modern Denmark. But I don't think the dinosaur was "from Denmark" in any meaningful sense, despite Denmark's justifiable pride in the find.
That's a great fix, thanks. – Quadell(talk) 17:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarity: I don't know what "self-activating unemployed people" are.
Removed "self-activating", not sure how else to put it, maybe it's a Danish thing. "Activation" for unemployed people basically means they do something whichis not necessarily a real job and get money for it. FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure we have a word for that. They were paid by the state? They weren't volunteers? – Quadell(talk) 19:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They proposed the project themselves and successfully applied for funding, so I'm not sure that would be called volunteers? Some of the sentence was removed during copyediting, it originally said "In the 1990s, the "Fossil Group/Project" (disbanded in 2005) was formed by a group of self-activating unemployed people, who successfully applied for funds from Denmark and the EEC, to maintain geological locations on Bornholm." FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Style: The article has many more parenthesized comments than most FAs, including one instance of a confusing double-parenthesization in the "Description" section. It would look more professional if at least some of these were reworded. Some, like "(perhaps due to dinoflagellate toxins)", would work better simply with a comma separation. As a suggestion, it seems to me that many of the parenthetical asides in the article would work better as footnotes. The clarification "not to be confused with the Robbedale Formation..." stands out as a footnote opportunity, as does the "a Bengal tiger of the same length..." comment. I'm not against parentheses (obviously), but I think their overuse can harm the encyclopedic tone of the article.
I agree, most of this was added by the copyeditor. I'll change it. FunkMonk (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The changes you have made (so far) definitely improve the professionalism of the prose. I feel like more "de-parenthesization" would be helpful, but I haven't yet decided if it's necessary or not. By the way, I noticed you did not choose to use explanatory footnotes. Is this because you don't think it would be an improvement, or because they are difficult to set up? What I'm asking is, would you want certain statements converted into footnotes if someone else were willing to do it, or would you prefer them to be left as they are? – Quadell(talk) 15:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, it's basically because I don't really like footnotes! I myself never read them, and find it annoying when interesting information is not just there in the text, but somewhat hidden. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I'll look the article over tomorrow and propose some more specific prose suggestions. – Quadell(talk) 18:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With a fresh look this morning, I now think all necessary prose issues have been resolved. (I may have stylistic differences, but that doesn't mean the article's wordings are incorrect.) – Quadell(talk) 14:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Style: This duplicated "which" feels slightly clunky: "which exhibited the fossils which were found"
How about "which exhibited the fossils they discovered"? FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great. – Quadell(talk) 16:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Style: When a prepositional phrase starts a sentence to give context for the entire sentence (e.g. "In 2005..."), some writers use a comma and some do not. Either is acceptible, but an article should use a reasonably consistent style. This article uses commas in some cases (like "After this discovery," "In an interview," and "In 2012,") but omits commas in other cases (like "In September 2000", "During the course", and "In a press release").
Wikicode help requested: When the article has wikicode of "the Greek ''-ides''", my browser (Chrome) does not connect the dash firmly to the ides, so it separates them when at the edge of the screen. That makes the sentence confusing. Is there some html code or wiki code to prevent that from splitting? Does anyone know?
I don't, sadly... FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wording: "were reported from the Early Cretaceous Rabekke Formation in 2008" is ambiguous. It sounds like someone stood at the formation during the early Cretaceous and reported from there, which is unlikely.
That's pretty much the convention within geology/palaeontology, a formation is Middle Jurassic in age, therefore a Middle Jurassic formation. Not sure how to word it differently. See also the titles of several of the source titles for examples. FunkMonk (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted a reword here. If you don't like the change, feel free to revert and word differently, so long as it doesn't say they were reported from a formation in the past. – Quadell(talk) 15:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, I must have misunderstood what the problem was. FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Should the E be capitalized in "Early Cretaceous"? Or the M in Middle Jurassic?
That seems to be the convention in these papers, but it does vary. FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Grammar: Capitalize "in addition to Dromaeosauroides and a possible titanosaur..."
Sourcing: The first paragraph of "Classification" claims "It is unlikely that a genus would survive for 60 million years". That sounds to me like the sort of interpretation that should really be sourced. (I don't find support at Bonde and Christiansen, the citation at the end of the paragraph.)
The paper says "it appears highly unlikely that the same genus should span more than 60 million years" (page 24). FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! My search-powers must have failed there. Nevermind. – Quadell(talk) 03:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments - reading through - nice article and an engaging read. queries below. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3–4 metres (9 ft 10 in–13 ft 1 in) in length, and weighed about 40 kg (88.2 lb). - the imperial units here are too exact given the metric ones - I'd be reducing them to one significant figure.
150–180 kg (330.6–396.8 lb) - same as above.
So you mean remove the stuff after the full stops? FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'd say 10-13 ft and 330-400 lb as this would be using the equivalent level of exactness. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm useless with numbers! FunkMonk (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, you can always do {{convert|3|to|4|m|ft}} which gets you 3 to 4 metres (9.8 to 13.1 ft). Iainstein (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can add it for any weight or length. If you want I can add template:convert instead of all the "150-180 kg (330.6-396.8 lb)". Iainstein (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could be nice, if you have the time. FunkMonk (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to it now. Iainstein (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a style thing for which there is no correct answer but I would always say, "family dromaeosauridae rather than "dromaeosauridae family" - the latter just looks and sounds odd to me but others' views may differ....
I have no strong feelings about this, will fix. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise looking pretty good - need to read again but no other prose glitches are jumping out at me....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Jim Just a few queries and niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Robbedale,—redlinked name of place seems pointless when it isn't even mentioned in the Jydegaard Formation article
Added to Jydegaard Formation as location. Iainstein (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand, they're separate formations, but part of the same "group". FunkMonk (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is a Robbedale Formation and the Robbedale region of Bornholm, which is in part of the Jydegaard Formation. Iainstein (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yeah, I thought we were talking about the formation, Robbedale is the location that the formation is named after. FunkMonk (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only likely place for dinosaur remains to be discovered on Danish territory, since the only Mesozoic deposits... and the only one which has been scientifically named... It is only known from two teeth, —too many "only"s, second and fourth are redundant or replaceable
No further queries, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears something went wrong? The article is still a nominee? FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is no longer a candidate; it has been promoted and listed. We have (continuing) problems with the bot not running. If you ask Maralia nicely, she might manually close this FAC for you and add the star. VoxelBot is becoming a pain in the arse and I think we should seek a replacement. Graham Colm (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks, I'll just wait then. FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Mutsu had a bit of a controversial beginning as she was not deemed complete when the Washington Naval Treaty was being drafted and was thus subject to being scrapped like all of the other battleships and battlecruisers then building. The Japanese claimed that she had been commissioned before the Treaty deadline and were unwilling to scrap her. Her existence therefore forced the terms of the treaty to be revised to allow the other Great Powers to build a limited number of equivalent ships. For all the fuss at the beginning, Mutsu's subsequent career was uneventful, even during the Pacific War because of the Imperial Japanese Navy's policy of preserving her battleships for the climatic battle against the Americans. She participated in several battles in support roles and only fired her guns once at the enemy. The ship was destroyed in an magazine explosion in 1943 for reasons unknown. Her wreck was extensively salvaged after the war and little remains. The article passed a MilHist A-class review three weeks ago and meets the FAC criteria, I believe. I look forward to working with reviewers who aren't MilHist people to identify things that may not be clear to the average educated layman and to addressing any other lingering issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class, and made a minor tweak. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article; one strange omission. You've mentioned the "narrowly saved from scrapping" detail both here and in the A-class review, and it's discussed in Nagato-class battleship - but for some reason it's not actually in the article! This seems a bit odd, since it's an interesting bit of early history... Andrew Gray (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's indeed very odd, especially since none of my other reviewers noticed the omission. Thanks for catching it!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
"Fate" in infobox: although the explosion happened on June 8, her sinking wasn't complete until June 9
True, but she was basically sunk on 8 June with only her stern fragment remaining afloat.
As complement changed over time, the initial figure in the infobox isn't entirely accurate
Added.
Be consistent in how you format short cites with multiple authors
Good catch.
What language is Skwiot? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
English and Polish. Thanks for catching these nits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Minded to support. A few things:
Lede
Second paragraph, second sentence. It was not clear to me on first reading that the explosion sank the ship until I read the rest of the paragraph. I think you need to make that clear in this sentence.
Description
Start the description by naming her, not with "The ship"
"During World War II, the crew totaled around 1,475 men in 1942." I'm troubled by this sentence. I understand you are trying to give us a wartime figure as contrasted with the peacetime you've just told us, but the "during World War II" clashes with the "in 1942" since the 1942 necessarily implies WWII. Additionally, that 1,475 figure is a very precise estimate. I suggest you rephrase and let's see how it shakes out.
Propulsion
If I read the section correctly, the 1930s reconstruction eliminated the need for coal. If so, that should be made clearer. What was done with the former coal bunkers?
It's not clear what happened to them in my sources. Likely either converted into oil tanks or removed entirely. I rephrased to emphasize that all of the boilers were replaced.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Armament
The word turrets occurs three times closely in succession. I think the middle one can be eliminated fairly easily.
"The unsatisfactory two-pounders " This is phrased as though you had discussed with us the reasons why the two-pounders were not satisfactory. You have not, I believe.
Fire control
"the Type 94. A new anti-aircraft director, the Type 94," this reads as if talking about two different things. If so, you should certainly try to distinguish them better. If not, that should be made clearer. Or possibly a different number was intended.
Problem is that they had two different Type 94 fire-control systems, one for surface guns and the other for AA guns, and I don't want readers to get them confused by mentioning the designations in close conjunction. I'm open to suggestions about how to rephrase that bit to keep the reader clear on what's being discussed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say, "also dubbed the Type 94" or some such.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Construction
"and for the Meiji Emperor's personal name, Mutsuhito" How strong is the source on "named after" rather than just "shares name"? I did some work on the Meiji article once upon a time and I'm mildly surprised that they would think it proper to call a ship after the personal name, which I understand isn't generally used in Japanese custom, that they do not use the personal name of the present or past emperors. That and I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night (not really, but in other words take it for what it's worth).
You are right about the non-use of the personal name by the Japanese after their death and I was surprised to read the source after it was pointed out to me. Personally, I think that Mutsu's name was merely a happy coincidence with Meiji's personal name, but that's not what my source says.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"and a similar arrangement" possibly ", with a similar arrangement"
suggest "scrap" may be overlinking, especially as it is a pipe.
Doesn't show up as an overlink when I run Uchucha's script for checking that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More a matter of opinion.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be stated where she took the earthquake supplies. Suggest this could usefully be expanded. It's interesting to the layman.
I only wish I could. All that I have is that the ship transported supplies, although I imagine that the crew did quite a bit more.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph needs splitting. There's just too much detail for one paragraph. Possibly after the 1920s.
Investigation
"was most likely a suicidal crewman in No. 3 turret who had recently been accused of theft." This is clearly an identified person. He cannot have been known to be suicidal or he would not have been on duty. It was presumably a theory that the man in question was suicidal, and this should be made clearer.
Last paragraph in investigation. Then you can remove the quote marks from the indent.
Salvage
"In the early 1950s, the US occupation administration returned the wreck to the Japanese government. " This is vague. Possibly "title to" might be added (if correct) after "returned"? But I wonder if this sentence really adds anything, and might be usefully deleted.
"salvage operations" given the name of the company, perhaps this might be changed to "recovery operations" and some modification be made to the rest of the sentence to avoid the use of "recovery" later on.
"Mutsu Memorial Museum" should Mutsu be italicized?
No idea, it's not italicized in my source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surviving artifacts
What about the one at the Yasukuni Shrine? It should probably be mentioned again in this section, if it is on exhibit there.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Yasukuni Museum is located in the Yasukuni Shrine. See how my changes read; I'm not entirely content with my changes I'm open to suggestions on how to rephrase things. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You describe the gun a bit differently here, "secondary". Possibly put it in the introductory text, "In addition to the 140 mm gun donated to the Yasukuni Shrine and today displayed at the Yasukuni Museum,(cite) the following …"
Support It all looks good. Interesting article. Amazing that a ship of war could get so far into one barely hearing a shot fired in anger.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking this over and catching all these infelicities and ambiguities.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional support
Copyedited as usual so pls let me know (also as usual!) if any issues; outstanding points:
In the lead you say "They dispersed the survivors", "they" presumably referring to the IJN. In AusEng we tend to treat group nouns as singular, so we'd refer to the IJN as "it", while in BritEng they treat group nouns as plural and would say "they". I thought AmEng was the same as AusEng in this fashion but perhaps I'm wrong...
Changed it to read "the navy".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tks, that'll do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Under Description you say "her existing boilers were replaced by ten lighter and more powerful oil-fired Kampon boilers, which had a working pressure of 22 kg/cm2 (2,157 kPa; 313 psi)" -- did the ten boilers have a total working pressure of 22 kg/cm2 (2,157 kPa; 313 psi) or is the figure for each of them? If the latter suggest we say "each of which".
My sources don't really specify, but I suspect the former.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, may as well leave as is then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Structure, coverage and referencing seem solid.
I'll rely on Nikkimaria's source review, but it looks like you need an image review as well. Perhaps Nikki or GermanJoe could take care of that. Assuming it turns out okay, and subject to resolution of my points above, I'm happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments; I'll ping a couple of people to see if we can get another reviewer or two to close this out.
File:Mutsu20.jpg is tagged as lacking source information. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to do here. Under Japanese law the image is copyright-free because of its age, regardless of its source. But I can't swear that it's PD in the US without a source. I can delete it although I strongly suspect that it's PD as well because of the URAA.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
A companion piece to my recent nomination for No. 36 Squadron RAAF, employing similar structure and sources, this article focusses on Australia's sole air-to-air refuelling unit. It operated Boeing 707s for many years and has just finished re-equipping with aircraft from the other big commercial jet stable, Airbus. Thanks to all who took part in the article's GAN and MilHist ACR earlier this year, and in advance to all who take the time to comment here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). I agree with quality of prose in assessment by Dank (talk·contribs), above. My only quibble is I'd suggest breaking up some of the larger paragraphs in twain, such as in the sect Post-war re-establishment, and perhaps also in the lede 2nd paragraph just to give it a bit more readability for the reader. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many tks for image check and review/support, Cirt -- I've split two of the larger paras. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome, and good, looks a bit better. — Cirt (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – a very well-written article. Just got a few points.
Well there you go, I didn't even look for that link it seemed so esoteric -- but then what's WP for if not esoteria...? :-) Tks for finding it.
Remove "Joint Strike Fighter", or replace it with "stealth fighter". Besides, "Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter" is quite lengthy.
Fair enough.
"and AV-8 Harriers, as well as RAF Harrier" – as the primary contributor of AV-8B, I have to say that there are substantial differences between the AV-8B/BAE Harrier II and the first-generation Harrier. Could you work "AV-8B Harrier II" and "RAF Harrier II" into the sentence? For consistency, you should include their manufacturers in the links.
Tks for pointing out that the RAF Harrier should've been linked to the British model, since not linking it implied it was the same model as the AV-8, which we did link. I didn't spell out manufacturers in the case to reduce detail in a fairly long sentence but I'm happy to do so for consistency, as you suggest. I'd prefer not to spell out marks as the sources aren't that specific.
Yes, aware of those parameters but I don't find them very useful. "Vol. 47, No. 2", for example, comes out "47 (2)". I've used the format in this article in similar FAs and it hasn't been a problem as long as it's been internally consistent. Tks for reviewing, Phil. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Volume/issue shouldn't be italicized, and be consistent in whether these are followed by a period or colon
Mmm, this didn't come up in a couple of recent RAAF unit articles where I did the same thing, but I do agree with you that they shouldn't in fact be italicised. OTOH, per last response to Phil above, the volume/issue parameters don't help much as far as I'm concerned. I could trick the template by putting italics markup around "Vol. nn, No. nn" in the title field, or I could just drop the the bloody volume/number since in all cases the publication date uniquely identifies the issue anyway. Any opinion?
Check alphabetization of References
Odgers title is quite different between Notes and References
FN29: this is actually an article from a longer journal as opposed to an independent document
All others done, I think. Tks as always, Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: looks good, Ian, I had a look at this earlier during the ACR and I see it has been improved since then. I only have one suggestion:
"The last one in service, an ex-Qantas jet named "Richmond Town", flew low over Sydney on 30 June in the company of smaller aircraft filming its flight, which gave rise to fear in some quarters that a 9/11-style terrorist attack was in progress." I wonder if a little more context could be added. What I mean is, obviously it wasn't intended to make the public think that it was a terrorist attack, so perhaps we could mention what purpose the flight was meant to have? It probably only needs a couple of words added to the sentence. Regards, AustrailanRupert (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I hope I've taken care of that now. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This is one of The X-Files more unusual episodes, featuring an baseball-loving alien. It, however, is also one of the series' more poignant episodes. I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is ready for FA. It was promoted to GA in the late part of 2011, then promoted to A-class in the later part of 2012. It has been edited multiple times since then, and has been copy-edited twice, once by Baffle_gab1978 and once by JudyCS, both within the last year or so. All of the references are of the highest quality, its format is similar to other X-Files episodes that have been promoted to FA, and the prose is neutral, informative, and of good quality. I feel it is ready. Any comments would of course be appreciated. This article was just nominated a few weeks ago, but the discussion closed due to lack of comments. I'm hoping this time, we can get some more comments! I'd like to note that in the previous consideration, the article underwent an image review, if that helps at all!--Gen. Quon(Talk) 14:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support—I responded to a previous nomination of this article, leaving a number of comments, and editor Gen. Quon was able to address my concerns. Overall, I think this article is very strong and support the nomination as a Featured Article. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Order of final sections is incorrect per WP:LAYOUT
Given that CreateSpace is a self-publishing company, what makes Fraga a high-quality reliable source?
While it is true that it is self-published, Fraga secured permission from Fox to make the book. Furthermore, the book contains interviews with the cast and crew of the series, as well as a foreward by executive producer Frank Spotnitz. In addition, Spotnitz has placed a link of his webpage (under 'Links') about the book, and has published regular updates concerning it under his 'mailbag' feature (see here). Matt Hurwitz, who wrote the Behind the Series, Myths, and Movies book, also recommended Fraga's book; that's where I heard about it. He has noted that the info is correct and "top notch", here. This has been brought up in other FANs, and each time group consensus is that the source is acceptable.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 21:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether you include locations for books. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. How do all the issues look now?--Gen. Quon(Talk) 21:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Ruby2010/2013 18:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments from Ruby2010
... but he does not want to, as he is unwilling to draw attention to himself. I know this is implied, but you might consider making the racial climate more obvious here (assuming that the episode also makes this explicit). Perhaps add on ...attention to himself due to the racist climate of the time.? Baseball color line might be a useful link to slip in there (or in the production section).
Why no mention of Rent in the lead?
Is there anything out there on why two brothers have the same name? Seems strange to me. Was it something to do with McGavin's exit?
McGavin later allowed the scenes to be included on the sixth season DVD as a bonus features. -- Removed bolded
Concerning the "great sorrow" quote by Spotnitz, what exactly is he referring to? That McGavin could not be in the episode, or that his scenes were included in the special features?
...largely due to his role in the 1972 film and television series Kolchak: The Night Stalker." This sentence looks odd to me. Wouldn't this work better?: ...largely due to his role in the 1972 film The Night Stalker and the television series of the same name."?
The see also links could use an explanatory note, as their relevancy to this episode is not immediately obvious without clicking on them. So for instance, you could list "*William", another Duchovny-directed episode" (or something similar). Up to you. Also, The Natural is already linked above and should be removed. Ruby2010/2013 16:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They look good. I made a few more tweaks but am now happy to support. Ruby2010/2013 18:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Sarastro1 (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeComments: Sorry to jump in like this, but after three supports I think a touch of cold water is needed to slow this down. I've just looked at the lead, and while it looks good I think the prose falls short of FA standard, and does not represent our best work. Just little things, but plenty of redundancy and some loose wording. I haven't read the rest of the article yet, and I think it needs a check and possible copy-edit for similar issues in the rest of the article before we go any further. As usual, though, this looks solid but I think a bit of work is needed to push it over the FA line. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
”"The Unnatural" was written by lead actor David Duchovny, and it marked his debut as a television director.”: “"The Unnatural" was written and directed by lead actor David Duchovny” ( I don’t think we need the detail of his debut in the lead)
”Although it concerns an alien,the episode is largely unconnected to the wider mythology of The X-Files, and functions as a "Monster-of-the-Week" story.”: Again, I don’t think this is necessary in the lead, as it will not be the first instinct of the general reader to think that alien=series mythology. (And do we need “largely”?)
”The episode received overwhelmingly positive reviews from television critics and members of the cast and crew,”: Overwhelming is a little POV, and this reads oddly as cast and crew do not usually review episodes. Maybe something like “and was popular with/well-liked by cast and crew”.
”most notably from series creator Chris Carter and co-star Gillian Anderson.”: Who says this is notable? Looks like editorial voice, and I’d suggest cutting “most notably” and using “including”.
”Mulder is a believer in the paranormal, while the skeptical Scully has been assigned to debunk his work.”: As I think I’ve said elsewhere, had their relationship not progressed beyond this at that point in the series?
”In this episode, Arthur Dales (M. Emmet Walsh), the brother of a previously recurring retired FBI agent with the same name”: Why do we need the link with his sibling in the lead? It will be meaningless to many readers, and reads clumsily.
”Exley was actually an alien with a love of baseball, who was hiding among humans.”: I think this is implied in the rest of the sentence.
”Duchovny was inspired to write the story after he connected the history of baseball in Roswell to the infamous 1947 Roswell Incident.”: This reads oddly. It looks like he went “OK, I’m going to connect these two unconnected ideas. There. Now I’m going to write a story about it!” I think the inspiration needs a better explanation.
”Jesse Martin was first considered for the lead guest role as Exley after Duchovny noticed him in a production of the musical Rent.”: Why are we saying “first considered”? (And can you have “second considered”?) As he played the role, why not “Jesse Martin was offered the lead guest role…”?
”Originally, Darren McGavin was cast to play the part of [as] Arthur Dales but, after he suffered a stroke, he was replaced by Walsh”
”its unique structure”: Unique to what? The X-Files? Television? Literature? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented your suggestions, here. Is there anyone you would suggest for a copy-edit? Everywhere else I've turned is a dead end.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 01:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I think the best way forward is to look for similar problems yourself. There are some excellent bits of advice within the exercises on Tony1's page, but to be honest the problems are not too hard to find and fix. Copyeditors, as I think I've written before, are rather patchy in quality and the best ones tend to be too busy to respond to requests from the blue. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More comments: Similar problems in the plot section. This is from the first three paragraphs of that section, and I'm again seeing issues which should really have been picked up by now. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1947, a group of white and black baseball players play a game in Roswell, New Mexico. One of the players, Josh Exley (Jesse L. Martin), hits a foul ball.": Several issues, although all are easily sorted. "a group of black and white baseball players" seems to suggest multi-coloured players. We have "players play" which is best avoided. What about "In 1947, a mixed group of black and white men play baseball in Roswell, New Mexico." But I'm struggling to see the relevance of the foul ball.
"Some of the players think Exley has the ability to play in the Major Leagues, but he does not want to, as he is unwilling to draw attention to himself due to the racist climate of the time": Maybe "Some of the players think Exley has the ability to reach the Major Leagues but, unwilling to draw attention to himself in the racist climate of the time, he does not want to." Although I wonder about "does not want to" which implies he was approached. Assuming that in the episode, he brushes of these suggestions, maybe something like "he makes light of it" or "he brushes the suggestions aside".
"Players from both teams fight back": What two teams? No teams have been mentioned.
"Mulder spots an article showing a young Arthur Dales (Frederic Lane)—the original investigator of the X-Files division—Josh Exley and the Alien Bounty Hunter (Brian Thompson).": Who is the Alien Bounty Hunter? A brief explanation would help. Also, the lead suggests that Dales had already appeared in the series, but this does not come across here.
"When he seeks out Dales at his Washington, D.C. apartment, Mulder finds out that Dales has moved to Florida": A bit nit-picky here, but if he doesn't live there anymore, it is not his apartment. Also, we have too many Dales in this sentence. What about "Mulder seeks out Dales in Washington D.C. but discovers he has moved to Florida".
"Instead, Mulder meets his brother (M. Emmet Walsh), who is also named Arthur.": Whose brother? Ambiguous.
"Dales tells Mulder of when he met Exley back in 1947. At this point, the episode jumps back in time.": This is quite clumsy. What about something simpler like "In flashback, Dales tells Mulder about his meeting Exley in 1947"?
"That night on the bus with Exley and his teammates, Dales sees the sleeping Exley reflected in a window: Exley's reflection has the face of an alien.": Too many Exleys in this sentence. Maybe "That night on the bus with the baseball team, Dales sees the sleeping Exley reflected in a window; his image has the face of an alien". Sarastro1 (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have implemented your suggestions here. I focused on making the writing tighter and less wordy. I will continue to comb through the article. Sometimes, I just need a fresh pair of eyes to point out that some of the sentences are too specifically written.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 06:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More comments: OK, changes looking good, and I've struck my oppose. Rather than continuing to list points, I've done a little copy-editing just to tighten up the prose, and it may be worth having another run through to see if there are any similar issues. Just a few points about which I'm not clear, and then I think I'm happy to switch to support. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"he Alien Bounty Hunter, who has been pursuing the renegade alien, takes Exley's form": A bit jarring for those unfamiliar that he can take someone's form. Also, it may be worth giving a little context as to why he wants to kill Exley.
"takes Exley's form and murders a scientist while he investigates the green ooze that Dales found": Ambiguous who is investigating. From the edit, I assume the scientist. What about "murders a scientist investigating..."?
"The Bounty Hunter demands that Exley revert to his true form before he dies, but Exley refuses; the Bounty Hunter then kills him but Exley miraculously bleeds red, human blood": Too many buts.
"Duchovny was inspired to make the lead guest character black because in the 1940s Jackie Robinson became the first black player in the Major Leagues.": Something of a disconnect between the parts of this sentence; can we make it smoother?
"Duchovny set the story before the integration of the baseball leagues so that the story would make sense from a historical perspective": Not quite sure what this means.
"granting the "alien his wish" to become human": The quotation marks seem to be in an odd place here.
"Contemporary reviews": What do we mean by this. It would usually mean reviews from the time of broadcast, but we've already had those. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for taking time and looking through this. How do these changes look? I will also try to get someone to copy-edit/look through it just to be safe.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 00:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I'm more than happy with the changes now, and I've switched to support. I would still suggest getting another editor to cast an eye over the prose. But credit to the nominator for putting up with me and for working so quickly to improve the article. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Cdtew (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My fourth nomination from the series of North Carolina's Continental Army generals, the subject of this article was arguably the most successful of them all on the battlefield, especially given the fact the he survived the length of the war, and, despite frequent illness, managed to be involved in some more successful endeavors than his peers. That being said, like his peers, Sumner was forced to undertake the unenviable and unrewarding task of recruitment, which in North Carolina at the time made him unpopular. I'm happy to respond to any and all comments. This passed GA, A-Class, and I believe it meets FA criteria. Cdtew (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Jim as a transient reviewee with the Milhist project at the moment, I thought I ought to make the effort to look at one of the project's articles in return, albeit from a position of near ignorance. Looks sound, but some niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
substantial amount of land—"area" rather than "amount"?
He is best known as one of four brigadier generals in the Continental Army from North Carolina —Is the claim to notability that he is a brigadier general or that he's from North Carolina, or both? Either way it seems a flimsy basis for fame.
oftentimes—looks very informal to a Brit, is it OK in US?
likely that Sumner would have retained close business ties with the province of his birth, and would likely...—lose a "likely"?
Multiple references should be in numerical order
Provincial congress—Capitalisation looks suspect
Continental Army general... He was chosen to be a Major—I don't understand the capitalisation convention with ranks
join with Robert Howe—Why "with", sounds as if they are both joining a third party?
Refs Rankin 1971, p. 132... Rankin 1971, pp. 132-34... Rankin 1971, p. 134. seems excessive when all are covered by the middle ref, there are similar.
I may have another look, I just picked these up on a quick read-through Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak: Jim, thank you for your well-reasoned comments. I have addressed all of your grammar comments in this edit, have reordered the only instance of out-of-order refs I noticed here, and took care of the Rankin page range issue here (I generally hate page ranges, so only cited the pages showing where the Congress opened its session and when it first discussed the generalship. Please let me know if you have any more comments, or if you believe I've left anything unaddressed. Cdtew (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with your responses, and I have no further issues. I assume you will deal with EddieHugh's concerns, so I've changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Nathanael_Greene_by_C.W._Peale.jpg: first source link needs updating
File:Sumner_monument.jpg: do the two licensing tags apply to different aspects of the work? If so, you might clarify which is which. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've gone and updated the Peale portrait links. For the monument, I placed a {{PD-art-70-3d}} tag on it, because I believe it's a safe guess that the artist who designed this monument during or before 1891 was dead by 1943; that being said, that's an educated guess, and I have not seen any indication of who the artist was. As for the duplicate tags, I removed the general US tag and left the NPS tag, which were both aimed at accomplishing the same thing. Any thoughts on how to resolve this would be appreciated. Cdtew (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the monument was erected in 1891, wouldn't {{PD-US}} make more sense? Or am I missing something? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, I didn't think that PD-US could be used for a 3D work, only for images. If that's a mistaken assumption, I will use it. I presumed since the PD-US tag says "this image..." that it wasn't applicable. Cdtew (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I've never noticed that about the tag - the Commons version says "work". I believe old 3D works can use that tag, although of course they need a separate one for the photograph (as we have here). Nikkimaria (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I just made a {{PD-because}} tag that incorporates most of the PD-US language. Hopefully that is sufficient. Cdtew (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The article assumes a level of knowledge that is appropriate for a military encyclopedia, but that may be too specialized for this one. As an example, the "Philadelphia campaign and Valley Forge" section...
"Sumner resumed command of his regiment". I assume that's 3rd NCR from the previous para, but that states that he was colonel, not its commander. The reader has to guess that being a colonel meant being IC.
Revised to reflect this in the lede and body; also clarified that "his regiment" = 3rd NC.
"he then served under George Washington". Does that mean just Sumner, or Sumner with his regiment?
Clarified
"he remained encamped with the main army". What army was that?
Clarified
"Sumner saw action". I assume that means Sumner and his regiment fought, but it's another ambiguous statement.
Clarified. Tried to use too many euphemisms, I guess.
"the Continental Army". Getting more confused: is this different from "the main army"?
Clarified as per the above comment.
"was due the appointment of two additional brigadier generals". So the number of generals from each area was based on the number of men each area had contributed? Stating that, rather than implying it, would aid the reader.
There was no set quota, just more or less a gentleman's understanding among the states. I've clarified it to more accurately reflect the source, which discusses North Carolina's own perception of what it deserved.
"North Carolina brigade". It is "North Carolina Brigade" earlier.
Corrected - there was no official title, per se, so it's really an identifier for a brigade, thus lower-case b.
"Despite his efforts, in February 1778, North Carolina's regiments were consolidated". So they were merged because he didn't recruit enough men, rather than for some other reason?
Clarified that it was due to a lack of soldiers, despite Sumner's attempts at recruiting.
Overall, I find considerable ambiguity in the writing, largely because of the assumptions made about the reader's knowledge of the topic. I suggest getting some people with limited knowledge of it to provide more feedback, so that the non-specialist reader will not be deterred. EddieHugh (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@EddieHugh: Eddie, thank you for your comments; since this was my third or fourth article I've done on essentially the same subject matter, you may be right in that I might have become lazy in my attention to detail. Of course, a reader may not be reading these together as a set, and I will go through the article to address your concerns and to look for any other areas where foundational explanation is required. Cdtew (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have begun to work on your comments, Eddie. I will take a good long look at the article tonight and see if there are any areas that need explanation, but any further feedback from you would help. Above, I've placed my responses in italics under your comments; if you object to me doing this, please let me know and I will move them below this comment. Cdtew (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The positioning of your responses is ideal. I'll wait until you've gone through it, then comment again. Just post a reply here when you've done that and I'll look. (Incidentally, you need to get the infobox dob and dod (plus age) to match what's in the text.) EddieHugh (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@EddieHugh: I've gone through and clarified the points you brought up, and sought to relieve some ambiguity that I thought remained. See my edits here, and feel free to let me know if there's anything else I can do to make this article better! Cdtew (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Further comments as I go:
"Continental Line" links to a railway in Sweden!
Oops. That was supposed to be North Carolina Line.
"one of five brigadier generals in the Continental Army from North Carolina" → 'one of five brigadier generals from North Carolina in the Continental Army' to be clearer?
Done.
"a large number of slaves". Main text has 35: was that a large number?
I think I wrote "large" possibly before I had the source that said how many; removed and specified. To be fair, 35 would have been a large number for Sumner's region (central/western North Carolina was not worked intensively by slaves until the early-mid 19th century when cotton was attempted; that being said, there's no source that I can find that would say that specifically about Sumner's area.
Early life. Maybe state that the forts were in Virginia.
Fort Bedford is in PA, which I've noted. As for Fort Duquesne, with a link to both the Battle and the installation itself, I feel like stating its location would be overkill. If interested, a reader could find out more about that with a click. I have, however, made clear that he was serving in Pennsylvania.
"both Virginia and North Carolina's colonial currency". Does "both" require 'Virginia's and North Carolina's'?
Removed for clarity.
"Early on". In what - as sheriff, officer, the war...?
Removed as excess verbiage.
"centered around". I've never been keen on this → 'centered on'?
Sounds better to me.
"six militia districts, including one centered around the town of Halifax, which district contained" → 'six militia districts, including one, centered around[/on] the town of Halifax, which contained'?
Agreed. Your version is cleaner.
"six month periods" → 'six-month periods'?
Hyphen added.
"the Provincial Congress at Halifax" seems to be the same as "Third North Carolina Provincial Congress", so not linking the former might make that clearer.
"under Lee's command in that general's absence". Clarify whether this was hypothetical, or whether Lee was away (if so, where?).
Clarified per source.
"stalled the selection of officers to assume those positions" → 'stalled the appointment of officers to those positions'?
I suppose appointment is better.
"the disastrous Siege of Savannah". Disastrous in what way?
Another one where I don't want to go outside of summary style, and the "disastrous" comment is likely not NPOV, because it was quite the opposite for the British. I've just removed the adjective, and will let the reader click the link to find out more about the battle, since Sumner wasn't directly involved, and classified it as a "Patriot defeat".
"the North Carolina Line was virtually annihilated". Clarify what "line" means, as this is its first appearance. Different from NC brigade?
Explained some. Yes, different, but at times, not.
"Between the Siege of Charleston in May 1780 and the Battle of Camden in August of that year". Was Sumner active/IC then?
Records aren't complete (that I've been able to find), but it's clear he was in NC recruiting, and not in active command, as James Hogun was in command at Charleston, and no formal NC Continental Army unit was present at Camden - merely scraps were there.
"A change in the political landscape". Too metaphorical. What happened?
Clarified.
"men like Caswell and Martin". "like" → "such as"?
Clarified with the above.
"Despite the passage of a draft law in North Carolina, his command fluctuated from day to day because of both temporary and permanent desertions". A lot is implied but not stated... "command" → "the number of men under his command"? "draft law" could mean a law about drafting men, or a law at the draft stage.
Clarified both - not to be pedantic, but I think "draft" should be well understood in the American English usage; to clarify, I've just wikilinked it to Conscription.
"the right flank of the Continental Army". "flank" first appears two sections earlier, so link there.
Done.
"On September 8, his regiments were [...] where his unit served". From regiments to unit?
Units, plural.
"was appointed commanding officer of Continental Army forces in North Carolina". Was this appointment up/down/sideways in importance?
The sources don't indicate this. The responsibilities were in some ways greater (more territory and more men in theory), but in some ways less (no real fighting still going on, and far less men in actuality than on paper). I'm not very comfortable qualifying it in any way, and even what I've said is more assumption than something stated in the sources.
"After the Continental Army's victory at the Siege of Yorktown, Sumner, who had once again fallen ill, failed to report to Greene for several months at a time." Expand. What was this siege? Was Sumner there? Failed to report what - anything/positions/status?
Added a little explainer, but again, Sumner wasn't involved (and it now states that), and anyone can click the wikilink. Also, the reports were on anything, and the sources don't clarify, but I think it's probably well understood even by the layest of the lay that an officer has to report the status of his command to his commanding officer on a regular basis - it's a fairly common feature of pop culture depictions of military organizations.
"Following the war". State when, for those not brought up on it.
Done.
"1783, serving as its" → '1783, and served as its'?
Done.
"much of which in the latter were"... improved a bit by "were" → "was".
Done.
"nearly destroying the stone structure and the general's remains". Maybe a verb is missing, but I don't see anything about destroying the remains in the source. EddieHugh (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could have sworn that was in the source, but that may have been my own mind jumping to conclusions. Removed to conform to source.
@EddieHugh: I have gone through these points, replied, and made my changes here. Your assistance as an "outside perspective" is extremely valuable, and I can't thank you enough for the time you've put into this. Let me know if you see anything else that could use improvement. Cdtew (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Comments on the above... The 'hyphen' in "six-month" looks like a dash to me. "the North Carolina Line (a term that encompassed all of North Carolina's Continental Army units) was virtually annihilated": a term can't be annihilated (use 'which encompassed..'?). In conclusion, although I don't know enough about the topic to say that I support (although I know a lot more than I did before), once the two comments just made have been dealt with, all of my comments will have been addressed, so I will have no objections. EddieHugh (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@EddieHugh: I've gone and made your suggested changes here. Many thanks again for all your help! Cdtew (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -- Primarily a prose review, as ever pls let me know if I've misunderstood anything in my copyedit. Outstanding points:
"Many of the North Carolina units' officers believed their state was due the appointment of two additional brigadier generals based on the number of soldiers it provided to the Continental Army." -- Um, this kinda pops out from nowhere for me. At first I thought "state" meant North Carolina but then I figured it meant "condition". If so, just what that condition was isn't immediately apparent to me.
Clarified to "the" state, as it is referring the North Carolina.
Whew, glad I asked...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"At Valley Forge, the North Carolina brigade had a total present strength of 1,051, but 353 were ill, and 164 lacked sufficient clothes to be fit for service." -- Again this may be a US thing but "present strength" confuses me a bit; if you mean the total number of troops the brigade had at Valley Forge then I'd say "strength" by itself is the appropriate term.
Agreed, and simplified to "strength".
Not sure if it's different in AmEng but where I come from "disinterested" means "impartial". If (as I assume) you mean "lack of interest" then I'd say that.
In American usage, "disinterested" does generally mean lacking interest; that being said, in American common law (and throughout American jurisprudence and statutes) it means the same as in Commonwealth English, so I should have been especially sensitive to that. Changed to reflect "lack of interest".
"Despite being away from the rigors of camp life, he was left in an almost worse position, as a monetary crisis at the time rendered many officers in his position nearly unable to support themselves at home." -- Firstly, "almost" and "nearly" in the same sentence sounds a bit 'off' to me. Secondly, I'm not sure how being away from camp life would relate to his financial position anyway, unless it meant that he could earn money privately. At the very least, I'd suggest recasting the sentence along the lines of "He suffered financially during his recovery, as a monetary crisis at the time left many officers in his position barely able to support themselves at home."
Done.
"After the Continental Army's victory at the Siege of Yorktown (at which Sumner was not present), which effectively ended fighting between the British and Continental Armies, the general, who had once again fallen ill, failed to make any reports to Greene, who remained his commanding officer, for several months at a time." -- Very long sentence and, perhaps because of that, its precise significance eludes me...
I've broken it down to clarify.
Okay, sorry but it still sounds a bit clumsy to me. As a starting point, can we say "Sumner was not present at the Continental Army's victory at the Siege of Yorktown, which effectively ended fighting between the British and Continental Armies, and failed to make any reports to Greene for several months at a time; this was due in part to Sumner's recurring illness." Even so, I'm still not certain about what was affected by his illness -- his non-appearance at Yorktown and failure to make regular reports, or simply his failure to make reports. If the latter, the question is then why he wasn't at Yorktown (one can't be everywhere and mentioning it suggests he might have been expected to be at Yorktown but wasn't for some reason). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Yorktown plays no importance for him, as he was in command of North Carolina, and wouldn't have been expected to be at Yorktown. I've removed Yorktown to avoid confusion, and hope that this fix works. I may be too close to the trees to see the forest if not.
Structure and depth of coverage seem okay to me; I'll go with Nikki's image check, and hope she'll be able to do a source review as well... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Thank you for the review; I believe I've addressed your concerns, so please let me know if anything is outstanding. Cdtew (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed we're now saying "Sumner disputed with..." instead of "Sumner engaged in a dispute with". I wasn't entirely happy with the previous expression but the current wording doesn't improve things for me. Perhaps we could say "Sumner became [or "was"] involved in a dispute with" or simply "Sumner disagreed with". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose:The disputed change was Kevin's; I've now gone and made it a little better, I hope: Disagreed over which of the two was to command...
Tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose/structure -- As I've said earlier, happy to go with Nikki's image/source reviews; no reason at all to doubt comprehensiveness but can't claim expertise on the subject matter, certainly the article seems neutrally worded. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Source for the infobox "years of service" range? The text supports him serving beginning 1758, not 1755
FN28, 39: page formatting
Rankin alphabetical range should use endash. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thanks for having another look; I've now corrected these. The infobox was just a remnant from an earlier draft; I rechecked my sources and could only validate service to 1758. Cdtew (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nicely done, compares favorably to his entry in the Dictionary of American Biography. I'd recommend citing that work just to get the additional detail that his daughter married Thomas Blount, since we have so few details about his family. Two other comments:
I'd drop the clause "and would have done business in both states' colonial currency". This is obvious and trivial, and I say that as the guy who wrote the article that the clause links to. If you keep the clause, I'd remove "would have" from that and the previous clause; the conditional verb is unnecessary here and I stumbled on it.
The last paragraph of the "Early life" section is about the Revolution and probably ought to be the first paragraph of the next section.
@Kevin Myers: Your kind words mean quite a lot, given your intimate knowledge of the time period and your vast body of work. I have made the changes you discussed, and added in the Dictionary of American Biography source/fact. Many thanks again for your review. Cdtew (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I-196, a highway designation so well loved it was built twice in Michigan. This is the last signed member of the I-96 family to come to FAC, and I look forward to reviews of the article. (Earlier this year, the article was given an A-Class Review that included a spotcheck and an image reivew; no images or source changes have been made since.) Imzadi 1979→ 20:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did an image review and found no issues. --Rschen7754 20:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I reviewed the prose at the ACR and feel that it meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 00:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I reviewed the prose and conducted a spotcheck at the ACR in June, so I can confidently say this article merits promotion to FA-Class. TCN7JM 12:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with just a few really minor things not worth not supporting over. Well, it seems like every time I have an FAC up, I see a Michigan highway article, and for some reason I can't help but be drawn to them! They're usually so good.... and this is no exception :) That being said, I got a few little comments.
"I-196 is known as the Gerald R. Ford Freeway, or simply the Ford Freeway, in Kent, Ottawa, and Allegan counties" - so it's not so back heavy, I'd put "in Kent, Ottawa, and Allegan counties, I-196 is known as..."
Done.
Random question, but since I-96 is a bit of an abbreviation, shouldn't its first usage be spelled out in full as "Interstate 96" in the lede? Ditto I-94. You do it it I-196, anyway. —Imzadi1979
I only spell out the first highway of each type, and then I abbreviate all others of that type thereafter. Since "Interstate 196 (I-196)" appears in the very first sentence, I normally would not spell out I-96 and I-94, even on their first mentions. —Imzadi1979
"The current freeway numbered I-196 is actually the second in the state to bear the number." - I'd cut "actually". Not the most formal, sounds conversational.
Done. —Imzadi1979
"Michigan officials requested a change in 1963 which reversed the two numbers and the subsequent segments of freeway opened northward to Holland and from Grand Rapids westward under the current number. " - add a comma, please
Done. —Imzadi1979
Is there a reason the interstate wasn't numbered something even, as it does connect two interstates?
I would assume it's because what is now I-196 started out as part of I-96 before the 1963 renumbering. Since the original I-196 was a spur, the odd first digit was appropriate. Additionally, if they switched what is now I-196 to start with an even digit, we'd have numbering issues since I-296, I-496 and I-696 are all in use in a geographic sequence in the state.
"In 2011, the department's traffic surveys showed that on average, 77,500 vehicles used the highway daily between Lane Avenue and US 131 in Grand Rapids and 12,778 vehicles did so each day north of the split with US 31 near Holland, the highest and lowest counts along the highway, respectively." - either add a comma, or semicolon, but it's a just a hair too long, IMO.
I split it into two sentences. —Imzadi1979
"At the interchange" in Route Description - just for fun, what sort of interchange is it?
"turns further inland" - since it has to do with length and stuff, I think it should be "farther", but it's a little ambiguous since it's not an exact measurement.
Done, but yeah, this might need to be changed back. I'll look it over again tomorrow and double check some of my writing resources to see which word should be used in this case. —Imzadi1979
"crosses over M-43 without and interchange" - should that be "an"? Or is there a word missing
That should be an "an" not an "and". Fat fingers and all. ;) —Imzadi1979
"about two miles (3.2 km)" - first, if it's "about", then the second unit should be rounded. Second, if the first unit is spelled out, so should the second.
I disagree here. Both numbers are rounded since if I really wanted, I could insert a measurement with precision to the thousandth of a mile. In this case, I don't see the harm in leaving this as is, which is the default behavior of {{convert/spell}}. —Imzadi1979
Eh, but the 3.2 km isn't rounded. Mostly, per WP:MOSNUM, units under 10 should be rounded. Not a huge deal though, just mildly inconsistent.
"the freeway runs along the river passing Millennium Park" - comma after river?
Done. —Imzadi1979
"A little over a mile and a quarter (2.0 km)" - why not say exact distance here?
I can't win on this point. If I give a more exact distance in the prose, I get complaints that it reads tediously. When I round it off in the prose like this, it's not exact enough. :) —Imzadi1979
Well, you could just say 1.2 or 1.3 mi, since you have the 2 km there. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Before the Grand Rapids–Benton Harbor segment was completed, the Michigan State Highway Department (MSHD), predecessor to the modern MDOT" - add comma to the end
Done. —Imzadi1979
All in all pretty good! Just these minor comments and I'll be happy to support. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have attended to all of the above, except where noted. Imzadi 1979→ 05:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm happy to support, and as for the km rounding or not, it's not an issue for me. I'd love clarification/standardization in the future, but it's pretty minor. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose after source spot-check.
Ref 5, plagiarism:
Article text: "roads important to the country's economy, defense, and mobility"
Source text: "roadways important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility"
It's not plagiarism because it's cited and it's of a irreduceable simplicity. Additionally, it can't be a copyright violation because it is a public domain source (coming from the Federal Highway Administration, a subdivision of the U.S. Department of Transportation). This was discussed extensively in a different article's ACR (see Royalbroil's collapsed section), and per policy, this is fine. Per the current guideline at WP:Close paraphrasing:
Close paraphrasing without in-text attribution may constitute plagiarism, and when extensive (with or without in-text attribution) may also violate Wikipedia's copyright policy, which forbids Wikipedia contributors from copying material directly from other sources. Public domain material must likewise be attributed to avoid plagiarism. If the source material bears a free copyright license that is compatible with Wikipedia's licenses, copying or closely paraphrasing it is not a copyright violation so long as the source is attributed somewhere in the article, usually at the end.
This is a single sentence fragment coming from a public-domain source where the core words ("important", "economy", "defense", "mobility") can't be changed significantly without altering the intended meaning; in the case of attempting to call this an opinion, this is an operational definition from the government agency that administers the program. I stand by this sentence, the phrasing, and the citation in this and several other articles rated as FAs. Imzadi 1979→ 19:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 10, fails verification. The map does not depict enough detail to support the claims made. Establishing that the highway crosses any of the railways shown on the map is difficult since no highways are shown on the map, and there is nothing about Amtrak on the map.
Thanks for updating the link. The new link is fine. --Laser brain(talk) 19:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After beginning to review the citations in the History section, it struck me that almost the entire article is sourced to maps. That's OK when describing the routes and geography, but how can you contruct a written history of something using only maps? For example, you write "In the first tentative Interstate numbering plans, the freeways in Michigan now numbered I-96 and I-196 were supposed to be part of the I-94 corridor, and the freeway between Muskegon and Grand Rapids was to be I-94N." and this is sourced to a map from 1957. The map supports what designations existed in 1957, but it can't support the claim that this was the "first tentative numbering plan". Next, you write "Later, the initial approvals by the federal government routed I-96 from Benton Harbor north to Grand Rapids and then east to Detroit, and I-196 was the spur route from Grand Rapids to Muskegon." again sourced to a map. The map shows the new routes, but where is the source for "initial approvals by the federal government", etc?
Sorry, but this doesn't pass muster for FA quality sourcing. You will need to locate some prose sources supporting the history you've constructed and anything claims that can't be clearly proven from looking at maps. --Laser brain(talk) 18:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: this is not the first FA to use this technique, which was vetted at WT:No original research/Archive 39#Regarding maps being "primary sources" according to this policy. As such, the citations to historical maps to denote the historical changes to the subject highway have been regarded as an appropriate use of secondary sources. (MSHD/MDOT/etc maps may be first-party sources, but maps are secondary sources; the primary sources in this case would be the aerial photography, surveyors' notes or GIS data used to construct the maps in question. See the previous discussion and WP:Party and person)
If there are specific concerns that can be rectified, fine, but the general sourcing is acceptable and therefore this is mostly an unactionable oppose. Imzadi 1979→ 19:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I don't have a problem with writing "the road goes here" and citing a map that shows the road going there. But, you didn't address the two examples I provided. The maps do not support statements such as "the first tentative Interstate numbering plans" and "initial approvals by the federal government". The only thing a map from 1957 can support is what existed at the time that map was created. You can't claim it was the first numbering plan unless you have a source stating that the 1957 map was the first numbering plan. Likewise, you can't claim that the federal goverment approved something that explains the difference between two maps, because the maps don't contain that information. These may not be the only two—they are just the first two I noticed. --Laser brain(talk) 19:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: I'm finishing a pair of edits about those two comments which should appear now. Tom Lewis' book Divided Highways: Building the Interstate Highway, Transforming American Life will bear out that the 1957 plans were the first tentative numbering schemes approved because they didn't decide on a numbering scheme until then. It, combined with the explanatory note just added, will show that the 1957 plans were just the initial plans and that Michigan was waiting on final approval through 1959. The next map of the highway system and its numbering scheme is from c. 1963, which shows what was ultimately approved in 1959. Imzadi 1979→ 19:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I forgot to mention, but the rail lines are shown on the paper MDOT highway map (online version available here), but they are not named on it. It is necessary to consult the railroad map to pull out the names. Imzadi 1979→ 03:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've stricken my opposition after further review, and your improvements to the sourcing of the History section. Thanks for your quick responses. --Laser brain(talk) 19:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
We have scoured references and feel this is buffed to the point it is within striking distance of FA status if not already there (I am sure folks will find stuff to improve :)). So have a read and have at it -we'll respond promptly... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nominators' comments seem welcoming, so I will make some comments having read the article from beginning to end. I have never been first to review a FA before. I have not considered MOS and I have not spot checked any references yet. Please consider my comments as ideas for discussion, which might or might not lead somewhere eventually. Snowman (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction
"... worldwide genus Latrodectus, " Gosh, do they live in Antarctica?Snowman (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would think most people would understand it meant all the continents bar that one, still I have changed the adjective to "cosmopolitan" - as in meaning 4 here. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Description
Some venomous animals are brightly coloured as a warning. It this the case for the spiders red stripe?Snowman (talk) 10:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That has been "commonly argued", so I've added it as a possibility. --99of9 (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy section and downwards
Queensland and Sweden (probably do not often occur in the same line): where the spiders specimens sent back to Sweden or did Thorell go to Australia?Snowman (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Finding info is elusive, but the structure of the source (with lots of arachnologists describing species) suggests that the specimens were sent to Sweden and described there (and remain still). I saw somewhere where the specimen is and will add specimen location added now. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"he named a female with an all-black abdomen L. scelio" - so is this a different species or an old synonym.Snowman (talk)
black widow spider is mentioned for the first time in this section, but without much detail, and this section is only understood after reading the next section where it is introduced better.Snowman (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we are writing as we are really familiar with it - will tweak. have rejigged. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do the common names need to be in the introduction and enboldened there?Snowman (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I generally only put frequently used or common alternative common names - most of these other names are very rare and redback is pretty universal, hence I feel that putting a very rare common name is undue weight really. Actually, "jockey spider" is not uncommon so will use that in lead. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction says that it is easy to recognise a female spider from the red stripe, so I was puzzled to learn that Thorell found a female with an all black abdomen.Snowman (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I recall seeing material on the variability of the stripe. Will take a look. now added - all-black females are occasionally found (and reffed). Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are there too many controversies to include a subspecies list in the taxobox?Snowman (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
several have been described but I am 99% sure that none are considered valid now. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Perhaps, the article could have a clear line like that. It was the line "... and named L. ancorifer from New Guinea, which has since been regarded as conspecific.", which seemed to open the door to it being a subspecies. The word "conspecific" is used twice. Snowman (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed a conspecific and made a definitive statement about no subspecies Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified it using the Garb 2004 paper. Is there enough detail? Snowman (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think so - the wording is an improvement - it becomes tricky deciding what should be in this article and what really is the domain of the genus article only. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possible omission. Unless I have missed it, the article does not say how many fangs the spider has. The description section does not mention fangs at all. How big are the fangs? Are the fangs visible externally, or only when the spider open its mouth?Snowman (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall seeing discussion on fangs in descriptions, which is weird. They are not prominent. Will take another look at some descriptions. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
L. mactans has two fangs and since they were once considered conspecific, I'm convinced, but it's not a slam dunk. I think most/all spiders have two. I'll have a bit more of a look.--99of9 (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will try and find one in my garden and take a photo with a macro lens. I am sure they have small fangs, just can't find a source to reff it Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article now says; "... with a very small fang.[19]". This can not be right, because they have two fangs. Snowman (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is because each chelicera is written as a single structure in that bit - I have rejigged it to write as a paired structure 22:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I see that the giant spider model or sculpture has red eyes. Does the actual spider have red eyes? I recall reading that the redback does not have good eyesight (partly because it lives in dark places). Is this true? Snowman (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. Unfortunately we have failed to find any sources discussing the size or colour of the eyes. Generally only jumping spiders or those relying on eyesight (like walking hunter spiders or the net-casting spiders) have big eyes Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
flickr image. This is the best photograph that I could find on flickr showing the front of a redback spider. It looks immature, and I am not sure if the eyes change colour when they are adult. It looks like this one has eight (four pairs) of small round dark-brown eyes. A reference for eight eyes is the sort of thing to look out for. Snowman (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference is for the Black widow and not this species - the second is better but is from 1830..surely we can get a more recent ref than this. If nothing comes up will stick it in Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Life cycle
Excuse me, I do not know what an instar is. Is this jargon?Snowman (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✔ Done wikilinked 99of9 (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can they survive so long without food?Snowman (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
added some info - spiders can lower metabolic rate and also store large amount of food in their abdomens Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 07:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can they survive freezing temperatures?Snowman (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know - their ability to do so is impressive and has been examined in several studies - see in this paper. It also mentions a possible mechanism in another species of spider, which might be a little tangential to include here. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that how other spiders survive cold (by eating cold-temperature surviving creatures) could be a red herring. From the 2011 paper, it sounds like a tough spider with no known pathogens, but the paper says that it does not like damp and it needs a relatively warm summer (or shelter) to breed. They call "parachuting" on a thread, "Ballooning (spider)" and the Wiki says that it can also be called "kiting". Snowman (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added the bit on warm summers as it qualifies the cold tolerance and is important. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How old are young spiders when they leave the maternal web?Snowman (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources say they leave as soon as there is wind to allow them to balloon away - I think this must be a matter of days as they have to be tiny to disperse like this and mature in 3-4 months. We haven't been able to find a number to put in unfortunately. Spider sources are alot harder to find than bird ones. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Information can not be added it if is not in sources. Snowman (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sheltered maternal web does not seem a good launching site. Do the young spiders walk off the web and then climb up something to catch the wind? I think many spider species "parachute" on the wind, so perhaps add something like "... as many spider species do".Snowman (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, however the sources I have seen to this point do not elaborate on this - one other source which might have more detail I have ordered on Interlibrary loan so I should get it in a day or so. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Use Casliber has now explained that this is some detail Snowman (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does it need to drink?Snowman (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✔ Done not unless they are starved. 99of9 (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do tiny baby spiders eat?Snowman (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✔ Done No field studies are available, but apparently they were happy with the menu supplied by lab researchers. Sentence added. 99of9 (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I have missed it, the size of an egg sac in not included. Also, there is one spelling using "eggsac".Snowman (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Space inserted - so all should be "egg sac". Good catch with the egg sac size. Added now (must have got distracted with all the egg numbers when reading those sources....) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do tiny baby spiders make small webs?Snowman (talk)
Size of adult's web for double checking. In the article the max size given is 20 cm squared or a square (4.5 cm x 4.5 cm) with a side of length 4.5 cm. Using the egg sac of spider's body as a 1 cm rule, that some of the webs in images are bigger than this and is seems likely that web extends beyond the photograph.Snowman (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can only go on what the refs say - some females are smaller than one centimetre so it could be a small female, or the web may not be rectangular. Other options are that I can leave the web size out, add a "generally" to allow for exceptions - what do you think?
I am a bit puzzled about the sizes of the two parts of the web - the funnel and the rest of it. If you have seen any webs, is your estimation of their size consistent with the published data. The article says "web is a disorganised, irregular tangle", and it almost sounds it the web is made at random and the spider does not know how to make a web properly. I read that the web has some fine structural features, so I think that the article gives the wrong impression about the web. Snowman (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a video on the Australian Museum website, which shows a web that looks bigger than 20 cm squared; see Web Design... Redback Style. The narrator says that the redback spider's web is "one of natures great feats of engineering". Snowman (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the web area is suspect. My specific suspicion is that the citation (a professional publication) confused 20cm^2 with 20cm x 20cm. The webs I've seen are in the range (5cm x 5cm) to (20cm x 20cm). Here's where my scientific instincts go for truth (or leaving it out) over verifiability... --99of9 (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed it as there are too many uncertainties for the information to be of benefit to the reader. We cannot interpret or correct a source unless we have another source that does so, hence I have removed the dimensions. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The size of the web has been dealt with, but the description has not been amended. Saying that it is disorganized is giving the wrong impression, because the web has fine engineering properties. Snowman (talk) 10:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To me the point of the words is in apposition to the symmetrical webs of some spiders - I have removed "disorganised" and left in "irregular" which I think is sufficient in highlighting this Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The new word chosen is better. I think that webs with this sort of organization are called tangle webs, see Theridiidae and Spider web, so I think that this classification can also be used to describe its web. This will help to clarify the difference with spiral orb webs and other sorts of webs. Snowman (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, gum-footed tangle webs are new to me. It is always good to learn something new, I plan to look it up. Another problem in this section is that "The vertical strands serve two purposes: they snare prey and small insects and can be lifted in the air, ..." does not make sense. It should say that the attachments of the strong strands to the lower surface are week and when they give way the entangled creature is lifted from the ground. Snowman (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded it to make it clearer but suspect it could be worded better Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks logical now. Snowman (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possible omission; The female is nocturnal. Is the male when searching for a female? Can it be described as a nocturnal species in the introduction?Snowman (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have added to lead - discussion of nocturnal nature in sources describes female. The sources don't discuss the male so much. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possible omission: It is cold blooded apparently. Snowman (talk) 09:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All spiders are. --99of9 (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is too general to be included, like saying birds are warm blooded Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious to me now that spiders are cold blooded, but when I started reading the article I did not know that. When I found out that spiders are cold blooded, I understood some of its behaviors, its 100 day survival without food and its requirement for a warm summer to breed better, so I would think that a few words is worth adding with the the mention warm places or warm summers. Incidentally, the Wiki article "Bird" does not say that birds are warm blooded and the Wiki Spider article does not say that spiders are cold blooded. I would accept the reasoning that "cold blooded" is too obvious to mention, if it was obvious elsewhere on the Wiki, and the redback spider article signposted a suitable informative Wiki article. Snowman (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the spider areticle to say they are ectotherms. I'm not in favour of a "signpost" to that fact, because most readers would already look higher up the tree if they want such general information.--99of9 (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reproduction
Are the gonads internal organs in this species of spider? Is there a system of ductules or ducts to channel sperm from the gonads to the exterior?Snowman (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recent enhancements to the article have made aspects of reproduction clearer, so this less of an issue now. I have put a strike through it. If it can be included, then fine. Snowman (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing to have palp as singular in first line (I assumened there is only one) and then find it is used in the pleural later and there are two.Snowman (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
clarified now. changed to "each of two palps" Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The redback spider is one of only two animals to date where ...". Does not make sense to me. Does it mean "currently known"? Does animal mean another species? What is the other species? Snowman (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it to; "The redback spider is one of only two animals known where the male has been found to actively assist the female". Is that what was intended? Snowman (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If only 20% of male spiders mate, is the sex ratio about five to one?Snowman (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Forster paper suggests the ratio of males to females might be 3:2. I'll see what is said elsewhere. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The information needs to be put in proper context. A female spider can lay 200 (or more) eggs in one egg sac, so there might be about 100 male spiderlings (might be some other ratio) per batch. So 20% of these indicate that 20 males from each eggsac breed. Actually, the population would retain its numbers if 1% of male spiders survived from spiderlings and lived to breed and all the survivors were all eaten by females at the time of mating. Even 1% is a very high estimate, because the males sperm can be stored and used to fertilise the eggs of several egg sacs and not just one. It is probably a bit like tadpoles, there are 100s hatching from the frog spawn and only a few live to adulthood Snowman (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 20% number in this quote is now contradicted by a newly added line, which says ".. , but that only around 11-13% successfully found a mate.[34]". Snowman (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised these numbers are from the same paper (we accidentally reffed it twice without realising) - she studied 2 groups of male spiders which succeeded 11 and 13% respectively, and concluded that "More than 80% of redback males die without finding a potential mate in nature." I have reworded to reflect this Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To answer Snowman's original question -I have only seen the one paper mentioning sex ratio and we can only add what is in sources. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back, I think that the original question was not logical when applied to creatures that have 100s of offspring; however a clarification has been made as a result of discussing the issue. Snowman (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possible omission. I am not sure that the nitty gritty of the nerve degranulation and tissue swelling are explained. Snowman (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One way to deal with this here is to leave it to the linked pages to explain. Having said that, it is the specifics of the toxin that has been studied a lot and makes this species interesting to medical science. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMO that should be at latrodectism (and maybe once on the genus page) since it's common to all latrodectus venom. Including it on every species page would make it difficult to update and keep consistent. This article is about the spider - we have to be careful not to over-medicalize it. 99of9 (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would a male spider spend a long time or travel a long way looking for a female spider?Snowman (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
turns out it is a bit of a mystery. They appear to be attracted by pheromones and may also balloon Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The newly information looks incomplete. There is more in Risky mate search and male self-sacrifice in redback spiders, 2002, which says males leave there own web after their last instar to look for a female and that they do not eat while searching and live 6 to 8 weeks. Snowman (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"and it may have been spread by human activities." does it mean spread to Australia by human activities?Snowman (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty clear that it has adapted and spread within urban areas. There is some thought it might have been introduced, but the consensus is that it is native. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edits to this section have made this clearer. Snowman (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I do not know what "sclerophyll" is. Is it jargon? Snowman (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is already wikilinked, which I think is sufficient. It's a reasonably common biogeographic description of a common type of Australian bushland, and would be hard to replace without losing accuracy. 99of9 (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have indicated that biogeographists would understand it, but you have not convinced me that it is not jargon. Snowman (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snowman, I have used the word often in Australian articles - it means a dry forest or woodland almost always dominated by eucalypts - sometimes the dominant tree can be acacia or even callitris. So I cannot think of a single plain/general word which is equivalent without losing meaning. I felt it was sufficient with a wikilink which then elaborates exactly what a sclerophyll forest is. It is not exactly lay-english, but is much much more frequently used here in Australia than elsewhere. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with using a line instead? The linked sclerophyll page says that there are two types, dry and wet. So the article is saying that the spider lives in both dry sclerophyll and wet sclerophyll, which does not seem to be what was intended. Note that the Garb 2004 paper says that the spider does not like damp. Unless I have misunderstood or missed something, I trust that the nominators will make sure that the word "sclerophyll" is used correctly with an adequate description of the habitat. Snowman (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After two weeks of no reply, I have changed it to "dry sclerophyll" from "sclerophyll", which I guess is the presumed meaning. The issue is still not resolved. I think that as the nominators do not appear to know that sclerophyll can be dry and wet, then sclerophyll must be jargon unless I have missed something. Snowman (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have the source, so I cannot check this. I am certainly aware that sclerophyll encompasses both dry and wet. You may be right to presume that redbacks cannot live in wet, but you might be wrong. If the source just said sclerophyll, I think we should stick to the source. User:Casliber? --99of9 (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure it doesn't refer to wet sclerophyll as well - the wording in the source is sparse and unhelpful. I will try to find another source though may be difficult. Keeping at "sclerophyll" alone is more in keeping with the source. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed "dry" which I had added, so the line in the article is as before. The Wiki article says "Outside urban areas, the redback is more often found in drier habitats ranging from sclerophyll forest to desert, ..." If you are agreed that sclerophyll can be wet and dry then the sentence does not make sense. It is like saying "The spider likes dry habitats such as wet sclerophyll and dry sclerphyll". Of course, it is a contradiction to indicate that wet sclerophyll is a dry habitat, unless I have missed something. Garb 2004 says that the spider does not like damp. I am a bit disappointed that no one answered my comment on sclerophyll for two weeks considering the nominating statement for this FAC says that the nominators will reply promptly. Snowman (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked and looked for any source which talks about any sort of natural environment for any sort of clarification on this without success. Having written many australian articles and being australian, I am familiar with the term and what it means. I can't confirm or deny it whether it means "dry sclerophyll" or "sclerophyll" and cannot second guess the source. The best I can do is wikilink what we have. Wet sclerophyll forest is still alot less wet than rainforest, so doesn't necessarily mean very damp -e.g. it gets burnt by bushfires etc. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
", it has even been suggested that the redback may not be native to Australia." How much following has this idea got?Snowman (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has been considered, but discounted by at least one author - it was found in Adelaide 14 years after that city's founding so the theory is that it moved into urban haibtations after adapting really well Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
update- have elaborated on discussions over whether introduced or not - does it read ok? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is more additional good material than I expected, and the two theories are presented with equal weight. I might be wrong, but I think that the new molecular evidence is fairly conclusive for the Australia being its native range. Is the older theory of the spider being introduced to Australia a fringe belief now? It would need to be consistent with the start of section which says "The redback spider's origins are uncertain ...". The 2004 Garb paper says that Australia is the presumed native range. Snowman (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have it right - alot of biology articles are less controversial, so in material online it is presented as an idea and then material is supplied to counter it. I hope that this is reflected in how we have worded it in the article (in that points raised rebuff it) - do you think this is enough or that there needs to be a closing statement that it is assumed native? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the riddle should be less of a puzzle. To show the sort of thing that might be clearer, I have amended the article to reduce the work of discussion here, and then anyone can rephrase it or change it back. Snowman (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those changes look ok and help make it clearer Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find. I've read the article and added a short paragraph. Feel free to copyedit. But be careful of being too definitive - the ID was done in 1920 when the species were not well settled, and it does have behavioural differences, so it could well be katipo or similar.--99of9 (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re File:Redback spider records map.png sourced from bie.ala.org.au. The image would be more informative if an account of what the various colours indicated was included on the Wiki or the image description on Commons. Snowman (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bites
"the disappearance of outdoor toilets". Is this literally true?Snowman (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many if not most houses would have the toilet in a small square room either at the back of the property (opening to the outside) or in the garden. When I was a kid in the 1970s these were still seen sometimes, but are very rare now. See hereCas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I changed it to "virtual disappearance" earlier. Snowman (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that - that was a good adjective to use. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" deforms human red blood cells," I have not heard about this before. What happens to RBCs?Snowman (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It makes them round and spikey (sphero-echinocytosis) - looking up spherocyte and echinocyte is moderately helpful but both link to specific conditions. These clls can't carry oxygen as well and could get clogged in the spleen as they can't get through it as easily. This has mainly been done in vitro so not sure how much dtail to go into. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think another name is crenated RBCs (crown-shaped); see RBC Morphology. I think it says that crenated RBC occurs in bee stings, snake bites and so on. We need to be careful applying the general to specifically the redback spider bite. Snowman (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think mention of "deforms human red blood cells" could be removed or amended as it does not give many clues to an advanced reader and probably does not help general readers. It is rather too vague and does not explain crenation - I am not sure if crenation here is due to secondary osmotic changes in blood or a direct effect of the toxin on the RBC membrane or something else. If the toxin directly affects RBCs, I think that would be interesting. Data organisation may be better if this is on a medical page and dealt with in details there. Unfortunately, I doubt if this is my UK books, and I have not found my haematology books at the present time. Snowman (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might agree with you - it doesn't appear to be a phenomenon which has clinical significance but has only been observed in research experiments, so I am thinking might be best on latrodectism page too but will wait to hear what 99of9 thinks as well. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind if it gets moved, especially if applicable to all latrodectus species. 99of9 (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the article it sounds like the IV route is off licence, but standard practice. Is that right? This leaflet says "usually given im", but I am not sure it is RS for the Wiki. It is probably worth briefly mentioning the hazardous side effects of antivenom.Snowman (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The official CSL product information indicates it can be given IV. It looks like it is up to the discretion of the doctor to give it IM or IV. Geoff Isbister is an Emergency Department doctor who has written more than anyone on Emergency medical management of spider and snake bites etc. and has concerns IM might not be as effective. IM is easier for many people. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, after looking at a few more webpages, it sounds to me that the drug is packed in an ampoule for administration from a syringe im or iv. Snowman (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excues me, I do not know what tobacco juice is? Is that an Australian term?Snowman (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've redlinked it - seems like a good topic for a general encyclopedia. It means saliva infused with tobacco by chewing it (Merriam-Webster), somewhat related to tobacco water. Since it's a bit tangential to the redback topic, I'm not sure it justifies a full explanation here. 99of9 (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure to be honest, but the sources I've read indicate that "tobacco juice" is tobacco + saliva, and "tobacco water" is tobacco + boiled water. But I imagine their toxicological effects are similar, and the main difference would be hygeine! 99of9 (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if it is applied of hygiene reasons. I think it would be the pharmacological effect of the nicotine/tobacco extracts. User Casliber is likely to be able to find something from Australian sources. Snowman (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✔ Done It turns out the terms are interchangeable, so I've set up a redirect to tobacco water and have added some Australian sources to that article. 99of9 (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possible omission: The mechanism for the historical hospital treatments, strychnine and cocaine, may also be worth adding to the article. Does the article mean injections of strychnine and cocaine combined or are each a separate treatment? I suspect that the explanations can be put very briefly in a line, and I think that the explanations could be generally helpful to understand the bite. Do not worry about this. If it looks too protracted then it may to too much detail.Snowman (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The idea behind injecting strychnine appears to be to restore muscle function (I've found old redback bite sources which go on about how weak the muscles become). I assume the cocaine was used for its anaesthetic ability. 99of9 (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know anything about this particular use for cocaine. It is dangerous and powerful stuff. I doubt if it is being used as a local anaesthetic here. I think it would be the pharmacological effects in a variety of synapses to oppose the toxic effects of the venom. Snowman (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Currently old treatments look like that are plonked in the article, and to me it looks like the historical treatments are not put on proper context. Why are they not used now? Were they effective? What was there mode of action? If odd treatments are included, then I think it should be explained why they are not used now. How much detail to put in the article? I think we would be aiming for MedMos standards. Snowman (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're not used now because there's an awesome antivenom that is super-effective, do we really have to spell out that this means you shouldn't bother cutting yourself up or injecting psychoactive drugs and rat poison? Some of your questions are interesting, but I haven't seen sources that formally studied how effective past treatment was, or its mode of action. Nevertheless, I still think it's interesting to the general reader, especially if they've heard rumours about the need to suck out venom, or if they want to understand the colonial history of living with these spiders. 99of9 (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the essentials of the old treatments should be described with more clarity or not at all. An old treatment may be effective, but not as effective as newer treatments. The antiveonom is used for the more severe bites only. Any untrue myths of old treatment should be dispelled. Snowman (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added the sentence "Specific treatments for which evidence is weak or lacking are not recommended." to that paragraph of old treatments at the end, though was deliberating on placing it at the beginning. I think it is easier to mention old treatments and then place a sentence concluding they are not recommended than not putting anything at all. I am okay with the sentence going at the beginning of that para if that works better for others. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the purpose of the new line. I would probably simply say that they are obsolete old treatments that have been superseded by modern drugs. Incidentally, what is wrong with completely deleting the whole paragraph on old treatments. I would guess that these old treatments would probably equate to old treatment of latrodectism in general. Perhaps, one source mentioning one treatment of one person in a newspaper report is too anecdotal to include. There are probably better sources. Actually, I anticipate that User Adrian J. Hunter review of the medical facets will be helpful, so I have been concentrating on other aspects of the spider for now. Snowman (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a biologist, not a medic, and don't really have time for much beyond superficial copyediting, so please don't hold out on my account. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, excuse me, I jumped to the wrong conclusion when you added below that you saw my notice on WP:MED. Snowman (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not found out anything about this cocaine and strychnine injection. I think that it must be too obscure for the article. Apparently, all sorts of things have been used for widow spider bites. Snowman (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Specific treatments for which evidence is weak or lacking are not recommended." This is at the end of the treatments section. It is rather vague and does not say which of the historical treatments is lacking evidence. Snowman (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was (apart from antivenom) there are no recommended specific treatments...but the line has been removed now Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea what you meant, and I was aware of what you had written. Having just read your explanation, I think that I know what you meant now, but it needs to be phrased carefully, because opiates are used for pain of the spider bite and first aid measures seem to be well defined. Why not add back what you meant? Snowman (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason to add it was to highlight the fact that there is no evidence for any specific treatments apart from antivenom. However, the line "Most traditional or historical first-aid treatments for redback spider bites are useless or dangerous" has been added, which helps do the same thing and really clarify these treatments as absolutely non-current. Furthermore, upon thinking about it, I realise that doctors can be a little arbitrary in demarcating what is specific and what is general - i.e. pain relief vs magnesium etc. So have been happy with the other sentence and feel that this line might be labouring the point. On the other hand, if you think it helps it might slot in well immediately after or before this line "Most traditional or historical first-aid treatments for redback spider bites are useless or dangerous" - what do you think? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I removed the last line because the first line superseded it to a large extent. The important thing about this section is that everyone is reasonably happy with it, and accept that there are other people want something slightly different. If you want your extra line in, then put it in. You could also include muscle relaxants as an old treatment, which seemed to be in favor in the 20th century prior to antivenom, with some presence in the literature and something that I think should be included to maintain balance. I find the section more bearable now that I have reworded and expanded it, but it was not worth the candle. I would like to remove a big chunk of this section on the grounds that the sources are too anecdotal. Snowman (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Omission: The manufacture of antivenom. Making antivenom would involve injecting animals with venom to make the antivenom antibodies. Where does the venom used here come from? What animals are used?Snowman (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that User Casliber has added lines on this. Snowman (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, a little explanation of passive immunity would help.Snowman (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this might be better in the antivenom article as it is a general feature of all Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a rather basic facet, but you might be right. It depends on the balance of how much detail to include on the technical aspects of the venom. The signpost to the anti-venom page may be adequate. I am glad that I raised this topic, because it would help to pitch the scope of the article. Snowman (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is the antivenom given iv with a syringe or infused in an ivi?Snowman (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The product information just says diluted and given via a vein. Generally if it has to be infused over a period it will specify in the product info, therefore I think it is just given in a syringe Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that makes sense. In an emergency, it would be much quicker to administer from a syringe. Snowman (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like some aspects of research could be relevant to the article. The BBC website reports research on spider venom on Biting back: Taking the sting out of spider venom. What is the relevant research on Australian spiders? The possibility or not of vaccination (active immunisation) against spider bites? Obtaining spider venom synthetically rather from thousands of spiders for injection into horses for anti-venom production?Snowman (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snowman do you think this is more of a general issue with all antivenoms and maybe is best placed on the parent page antivenom? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I raised this issue, the article did not have anything on how antivenom is made using horses, so there appeared to be a bigger gap then, than there is now. If there is nothing specific on new research to the redback spider anti-venom or antiveonom, then I think research could go elsewhere; however, some of this research sounds fascinating. I will strike this as resolved, but trust that if anything relevant is found then it can be discussed or added to the article. Snowman (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do pets or any other animals get spider bites?Snowman (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be uncommon but they do - some info added now Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First aid - No constriction or pressure (unlike other spider bites). I also read that the bitten person should not move a lot. Probably more relevant than some of the other clinical information already in the article.Snowman (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - important as pressure immobilisation is standard when bitten by many poisonous creatures - added. I saw a general page about patient not moving alot but this is not mentioned in the more specific redback treatment pages, so I have not added that Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read somewhere that pressing on a painful bitten area causes more pain, so if there is RS this can be added as another contraindication. Snowman (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the human victim still is in this protocol for ambulance crew. Here it appears keeping the bitten human still appears to be included in first aid, so it probably needs adding to the article. Snowman (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
okay - question is where to slot it in in Treatment paragraph. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like this is first aid, so it would go in a paragraph about first aid. Snowman (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
upon re-reading I can see a place to add and so added. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an inconsistency in the prognosis section; "only about 20% of bite victims require treatment with the antivenom" and "... , 56 were from redbacks. Of these, 37 had significant pain lasting over 24 hours, but only six were treated with the antivenom". In the latter 6/56 is less than 11%. Hospital cases are probably the more severely affected spectrum.Snowman (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True - and it may be we are overmedicating people in Emergency Departments. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the treatment section says "In more severe bites (2–4% of cases),[80] the definitive treatment consists of administering redback antivenom", which makes the 20% number look out-on-a-limb. Snowman (talk) 08:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that this could be simplified and shortened for the spider article leaving linked pages to explain the detail? Any comments. Snowman (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 6/56 is consistent with "about 20%", given the inherent noise in sampling small populations. Since the 20% was from "clinical experience", it might also be referring only to victims who present at the clinic. Perhaps the 2-4% is attempting to consider the proportion of all bites. Should we just say "a small proportion", and leave it to the readers' interpretation of the three sources? --99of9 (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6/56 is about 10.7%. I think that the article should be informative and that "a small proportion" may not be particularly helpful being rather vague and somewhat subjective. Snowman (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6/56 is 10.7 +/- 8.1% with 95% confidence. The upper end of that range is consistent with some other small number observation which concluded "about 20%". Anyway, I'll look further into this now. --99of9 (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is now resolved. the "2-4%" and the "about 20%" (in abstract) / "less than 20%" (in text) were calculated the same way (antivenom usage reported by manufacturer / total number of bites), but their estimates for the number of bites were in extreme variance. We've now got "less than 20%" with a note about the variance, and the figures on which calculations can be based. The weak "less than 20%" is certainly consistent with the hospital stats, which themselves have significant uncertainty due to a small statistical sample. --99of9 (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A range would be more informative, rather than less than 20%. Snowman (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Range added now that the footnotes explain it in detail. --99of9 (talk) 05:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I guess we could do this - the obvious choice of page for greater detail is Latrodectism (which is undersized at present) - question is, how much do you think should be moved and how much remain to summarise? Where to draw the line can be tricky Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it difficult to interpret "Hmm". The scope of a set of wiki articles is difficult balance here and I do not know the answers. My guess in a short answer would be to make this article to be like a textbook review rather than a journal review. I would think that medical stuff and statistics relevant to only the redback spider are relevant here. I am trying to think what is best for the Wikipedia. Snowman (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Hmm" means I am deliberating as well - we need to think of the individual items. I am ok with how things are now, though the latrodectism article clearly needs expanding but that is beyond the scope of this really. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about the inconsistencies I have highlighted? Snowman (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking about this - the two most recent secondary sources we have are the 2011 Lancet article by Isbister and the CSL textbook (if I don't get that in the post by tomorrow I will go to the medical library at the hospital at lunch or something) and do some review of overall statements so we have the most up to date where possible. This will be sorted very soon. I am just having some thoughts on what should be where as I take prognosis to be long term and hence am thinking that discussing antivenom best not discussed in that section. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with the 2-20% who require antivenom treatment being moved up to the treatment section. That makes sense to me. --99of9 (talk) 05:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Adverse reactions to redback antivenom including anaphylaxis and serum sickness are rare,[85] only occurring in 0.54 and 1.4–1.7% of cases respectively." For clarity of writing about side effects there are definitions of rare and uncommon. In the British National Formulary or BNF (page 11), common is 1 in 100 to 1 in 10, uncommon is 1 in 100 to 1 in 1000, and rare is 1 in 1000 to 1 in 10000. I did not change the article, partly because you have two refs in the article for this. On another point, I have seen some web-sites say to have adrenaline ready in case of an allergic reaction to antivenom taking this possibility seriously.Snowman (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the article is going into too much detail and missing some of the important points - such as having adrenaline handy when administering anti-venom; see BNF page 36 under the heading "Snake bites and animal stings" for some general comments, but not specifically about the redback spider. I have started a discussion on the scope of the article under a separate topic below. Snowman (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adrenaline has been added. I have substituted the word "rare". Snowman (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have had to remove the strike out marks, because of a regression. My reasons for not using the word "rare" are above as before. The source says that anaphyaxis is rare and that serum sickness has a very low incidence. However, I have seen other papers give 5% to 10% for the incidence of serum sickness. Note that rare has a commonly understood definition that does not fit with the paper. Note that he reference is 2004 and hence old. Snowman (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - I must have missed the numbers the BNF use to define "rare" - I have never encountered that scale before. I have reworded to "very low" and attributed it to that summary again. I have looked and connot find a secondary source that is newer that specifically comments on rates of side effects - hence I cannot put one in if there aren't any. If you did see one then let me know. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen papers on serum sickness after antivenom treatment, and I plan to return to this topic later. Snowman (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I realise the lancet report has a summary of rates of reactions to antivenom - have removed all older material and substituted this - the older material's rates do not gel at all - and as this is newer and a secondary source it supersedes it Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 07:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scope of article. There are linked pages on Latrodectism and Latrotoxin, so I am wondering how much of the medical aspects need not be explained on the spider article, but can be explained on linked pages. I do not know the answers. Any comments. Snowman (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's better not to re-explain the detailed medical mechanisms etc on every species page, hence my answer to your query on explaining nerve de-granulation. 99of9 (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Redback venom is considered the deadliest venom (for equal quantities) of any Australian spider." the in-line reference is from 1966, which is not ideal for medical information. The brown widow spider is also in Australia now and its venom is potent also. Snowman (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Going on the LD50's on How Not To Die In Australia Part 2: Spiders a funnel web spider has a more potent toxin. I am not sure if this source is RS for the wiki, but I think some double checking is needed, because the Wiki article may be wrong.Snowman (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I am not seeing any information supporting this in any peer-reviewed literature and beginning to think we might be best in removing it. 99of9 have you seen anything else in peer-reviewed literature gelling with it? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've slightly toned down the weight given to this claim due to its age (though since it was quoting a CSIRO research paper, I think it was reliable when claimed). I've also added some reliably sourced LD50s to quantify this lethality, both for the venom, and for pure alpha-latrotoxin. One thing you should check if you approve of... I converted the first LD50 from %total venom/mouse to (modern units) mg/kg based on the venom mass and mouse mass both given in the same article. At one level, this is just a unit conversion, but it edges toward OR, so you should see what you think. --99of9 (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that there is any problem in presenting information in the Wiki article ←in a different way to that to that of the source. Wikipedians are always doing this. However, I have not checked your calculations. This line "... Some reports claim that the redback has the deadliest venom (for equal quantities) of any Australian spider." now looks like wheesle words to me, you called it toning down. Snowman (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✔ I think we're done with this one now that the sentence is gone. --99of9 (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"but cutting, excising, sucking, or washing of the wound are now discouraged.[104]" This sounds sensible, but the source is about the pressure immobilization technique (PIT), which does not apply to redback spiders. All you can say from the ref is that PIT does not apply to redback spiders.Snowman (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that was subtle, but I see your point. The advice not to cut or suck is applicable to all bites, but technically wasn't in the scope of that document. I've replaced the source. Interestingly this one supports washing. --99of9 (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was a case of reading the source and not jumping to conclusions about what it says. Snowman (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The venom contains "... number of high-molecular-weight proteins"; Some of these are insecticidal and would be important for the spider. I think these need explaining a bit more.Snowman (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added something. Snowman (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The symptoms relate to the effects on adults. It seems unbalanced without mention of the slightly different effects on children.Snowman (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added some material - there isn't much - one Review article which discusses two ten year retrospective studies which I then ref. One talks about reasons for the figure discrepancies but this didn't make into the Review so I didn't add (wasn't convinced of some points made either... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 1993 study over a 10-year period would be too old for WP:MEDMOS, but even without considering MEDMOS it would be sensible to use up-to-date references and be cautious about the 1993 primary study. Also, all of the souses uses are rather old. As a result I think that the current paragraph on the symptoms in children seems suspect to me. Souses less than 3 to 5 years are recommended for medical issues on the Wiki. Snowman (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There do not appear any more recent studies focussing on children. I would argue that old information is better than none. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the 2013 Australian doctors' handbook on bites has anything? Snowman (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully it will arrive soon. If not I will go to the hospital library and check Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be reasonable to pause this FAC until you get the 2013 book? Snowman (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It could be any day now. I will ring today a bit later if it doesn't arrive Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that this FAC has paused until the 2013 handbook can be accessed, at least with regard to the clinical facets of the topic. It seems sensible to pause work on the clinical sections and restart when the key up-to-date 2013 handbook is used as a source. Snowman (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the postman today but have a parcel to pick up tomorrow. here's hoping Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the book is over 300 pages, so it should be quite heavy. Snowman (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite compact actually - some extra info on children added now. I am contemplating removing the earlier studies. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the section on symptoms in the young is muddled. The first sentenced has one set of symptoms and the last sentence has another set of symptoms. I think that the section needs amendments and this is likely to involve selecting the most appropriate sources. I note that some of the source are primary sources and other quite old. Snowman (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have footnoted all the older material - but was contemplating merely deleting it. I wonder whether it adds information or detracts as a whole. MEDMOS would suggest I delete it I think Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Pure alpha-latrotoxin has an LD50 of 20–40 µg/kg". In what animal?Snowman (talk) 11:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
mice, added --99of9 (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Individuals average around 0.08–0.10 /;mg of venom in total, ...". Does not make sense to me.Snowman (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
reworded, see if it makes sense now. --99of9 (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Omission: muscle relaxants as an historical treatment, which seemed to be in favor in the 20th century prior to antivenom. This has some presence in the literature and something that I think should be included to maintain balance.Snowman (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking of the use of benzodiazepines. Snowman (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a comment in one of the treatment summaries - will hunt it down and add in the morning - late here Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Magnesium is already included. Calcium could be added as well. Snowman (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This paper mentions that calcium has been used - the reference highlights that it was tried in mactans poisoning, not hasselti, so I am thinking it might be best on the latrodectism page. The same situation with benzodiazepines. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Braitberg (2009) paper refers to muscle relaxants and calcium in redback spider bites. Snowman (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
aaah ok, right, that and the Rauber paper put it in better perspective and now added Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Symptoms" section starts "Bites from the redback spider produce a syndrome known as latrodectism, ...", which is not a good start because many spider bites do not lead to systemic effects (latrodectism).Snowman (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The syndrome is generally characterised by extreme pain." This does not make sense because characterised implies an essential nature of something, so by definition it can not be only generally so.Snowman (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has been reworded. --99of9 (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Omission from the "Symptoms" section: an coherent account of the majority of cases that do not show systemic effects and do not need hospital treatment.Snowman (talk)
The heading is "Symptoms", but it also includes signs, such as hypertension. Perhaps, the heading should be "Symptoms and signs".Snowman (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✔ Done -> Signs and symptoms (this way around is more common usage) --99of9 (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Omission. Precautions to avoid redback spidder bites - ie wareing gloves when gardening and not going into the garden with bare feet at night. - see Better Health channel and Australian Museum.Snowman (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"25% on proximal limbs". What is a proximal limb?Snowman (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
prximal limb means upper arm or thigh (i.e. the bit proximal to the knee or elbow). clarified Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the thigh and upper arm are proximal parts of limbs. A "proximal limb" is the wrong phrase. It should be "proximal section (portion, part or zone) of limbs". A human upper limb is the whole arm. A human lower limb is the whole leg. Snowman (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have re-written it. Snowman (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"the definitive treatment consists of administering redback antivenom, which will usually relieve symptoms of systemic envenoming.[95]". I found that none of this line is supported by the in-line reference, which is a National Geographic video.Snowman (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the sentence as it is repeated in the following two - and reworded slightly. Agree we shouldn't be using that video as a ref and have removed it Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Particular indications for using antivenom are pain and swelling spreading proximally from site, distressing local or systemic pain refractory to simple analgesia, chest pain, abdominal pain, or excessive sweating.[67][95]"; There are two in-line references here. One is a 1995 reference, which I think is too old, partly because of the more recent controversies about giving the antivenom. The other is a National Geographic video which does not support any of this line. A Lancet review on spider bites indicates that the redback spider venom has no beneficial effect, but is relatively harmless; see Spider bite (July 2011) (it is not in the abstract). A primary article with a similar conclusion is A randomised controlled trial of intramuscular vs. intravenous antivenom for latrodectism—the RAVE study (2008). It is important to use up to date sources (preferably not primary sources) on the controversial topic of antivenom treatment for spider bites and to give a current and balanced point of view.Snowman (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the lancet article is about as recent as we have, and is a review/summary. Have used it more and added the conclusion on the antivenom. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"... and number of high-molecular-weight toxins, ...": I added this as only the vertebrate neurotoxin had been included. I think that the other toxins acting on several phyla of organisms are of importance to the spider and should be explained better. They are also of importance in the research into potential insecticides against pest insects. Snowman (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with that addition - we can only add what we can verify with sources, but will have a look to see if there is any Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update - have a secondary source that summarises them. Listed now. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is beginning to have some symmetry. Does it have a venom to kill scorpions or other spiders? Does insects mean insecta? I recall reading that the black widow spider (of USA) has 6 (or was it 7) venoms each active against different taxa. Snowman (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But here again there comes an issue with scope - the 2001 Sutherland book I just got (I went to the medical library to see if there was a copy of the 2013 book but found this instead - the library has the 2013 book on order, just like I have. I rang bioCSL and it is not out of stock so sent a reminder email) says that redback venom itself is little-studied, but is almost certainly very similar to others - one of the key studies to analyse the different toxins was on that of the Mediterranean black widow, so I am wary of going into too much detail here Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 2001 book is quite old, so it would be better not to use it too much. I wonder how much of it is superseded by the 2013 handbook. Snowman (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They might have slightly different emphasis - the 2001 book has alot of natural history of spiders in it too, whereas the other one might be more strictly clinical. We'll see Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I expect the 2013 handbook will be up-to-date and detailed about clinical aspects. There might have been advances in the constituents of the venom after 2001, and I am not sure if this will be in the 2013 book or not. Snowman (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is very succinct - it does not discuss the constituents of venom other than to mention the main toxin Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We did not know what the book contained until now. Snowman (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A Clinician’s Guide to Australian Venomous Bites and Stings: incorporating the updated CSL Antivenom Handbook, 2013. It is even offered free to Australian doctors; see Doctors get guide to venomous bites and stings. It is the much expanded and up-to-date version and is the current comprehensive handbook for Australian doctors. It is used in the treatment section three times, each supporting a key fact, but I wonder if it offers much more for the clinical aspects of the spider bite.Snowman (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't arrived yet. Am hoping they still have some to send....arrived now. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An Irritable Infant and the Runaway Redback: An Instructive Case (2011) appears to suggest that the antivenom can be given diluted in an ivi and also outlines the difficulty in diagnosis in infants. Both these aspects in this primary article are not considered well in the Wiki article. Should this primary article be included? Probably not unless it is in review articles. What do review articles or the 2013 handbook say about ivi medication and the syndrome in infants?Snowman (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The wiki article mentions irritability as a presenting symptom already. I don't think the dilution is worth adding on the basis of this one case. Realistically doctors often dilute an injection so this is not an unusual procedure. Am still waiting for handbook. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed the ivi mode of administration in more articles after I added the case above. Snowman (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that diluting it reduces side effects, so I think that the mode of administration over about 20 mins in an ivi is important. I think that it is being used more now. A web-search for "redback spider antivenom diluted" brings up a number or relevant pages. Snowman (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dilution from 2001 Sutherland textbook added. I don't ave the 2013 one yet. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Administering the drug slowly in an ivi remains a bit of a mystery. I wonder if the 2013 handbook would clarify it. Snowman (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
page 209 of the 2013 handbook recommends diluting 1:10 into a 100ml bag of solution for adults and running in over 30 minutes. I winder whether this is too much detail for the article though. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this seems to be essential information and simplifies a lot of confusing information. It shows how much caution is needed in giving the venom. This route of administration also features in recent articles on the internet. Snowman (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added something that would seem logical. It needs checking against the 2013 handbook and the citation added. Snowman (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Envenomation from the redback spider produces a syndrome known as latrodectism." Is a "mild" bite with pain staying in the foot and not extending up the leg called envenomation or latrodectism? I think that it probably is, but I have been confused about this for some time and I am still not entirely certain. It may be useful for the article to talk about grades of severity of latrodectism as in the RAVE study (2008), if this is consistent terminology. Snowman (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that some papers, such as this one, don't actually define latrodectism. Missed the link/will read and try and ensure that our article matches consensus definition. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update - having considered this - no other papers or textbooks/handbooks talk about grading latrodectism, so I think that adding a grading scheme from one study is giving it undue weight. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are probably other ways to make the clinical sections easier to read. Snowman (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes there is mention of local, regional, and systemic effects. It this sub-division mentioned consistently? Snowman (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - have reorganised this partly along those lines. Still a tiny bit more to do. Just a little fiddly trying to align material It is arranged with local and regional and dependent radiation in one para, and systemic in the next para. The setence beginning "Some subjects with delayed symptoms may present with a characteristic sw...." could mark a new para as that is dependent effects, which are slightly different to the local/regional ones. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No deaths (or possibly one)[21]; This may need a footnote to explain the possible one death, partly because the introduction simply implies no deaths.Snowman (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote added, feel free to tweak. I don't think the lead needs modification, since it already qualifies "have been formally recorded". --99of9 (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, the article could say that there is not a medical test to confirm a redback spider bite. It seems odd to write an clinical account without a diagnosis section.Snowman (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen that mentioned as such in a medical reference. I can have another look. Diagnosis is made on clinical grounds (as well as finding or seeing the spider!), which I thought the article covered. Will read again and think whether we need to make this point more prominently Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nimorakiotakis and Winkel (2004) say that there is no laboratory test. This paper is already used as a source in the Wiki article. Snowman (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad this exists - added now, also added some conditions which it has been mistaken for Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes. I would have thought that the footnotes need references.Snowman (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to supply some - I tried but the wikimarkup for a <ref> inside a <ref> broke the html. Does anyone know if it's possible? --99of9 (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See the format of the footnote on the "European Storm Petrel" Wiki article. Snowman (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thanks. I've now implemented this, and expanded the detail in one of the footnotes. --99of9 (talk) 05:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Adverse reactions to redback antivenom including anaphylaxis and serum sickness are unusual,[104]"; Reference 104 is the CSL Antivenom Handbook (2001). To me, this is not compatible with more than one FA criteria. As is clear on the linked webpage which has been provided by the in-line reference, the version of the handbook sourced is no longer current. The 2013 version of the handbook supersedes the 2001 handbook. The book might be suitable for historical treatments, but not for the section on current treatments. Also, "are unusual" seems a bit vague to me. I an anticipating that this source will be removed; however, please note that the citation template does not include the date of the book nor a page number. Snowman (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the 2013 handbook is very succinct - written in point form and does not identify a rate of adverse reactions, only what to do in case of one. I will assess the next most recent/secondary source and add The 2004 GP guidelines are the latest ones which have some comment - describing incidence as "very low". the lancet and 2013 book call the antivenom "safe" but do not discuss further. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The wording has been changed to rare. The ref says "very low" for serum sickness, which is not the same as rare. Snowman (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
now changed to "very low" and attributed - difficult to really use another subjective term. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"..., and babies are born healthy". Does this mean 100% of the time? Snowman (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it's not a magic potion. The source had "typically", which I've now added here.--99of9 (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it means "typically not affected" and I will write that in. Snowman (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there is nothing to confirm this in the 2013 handbook, then I think that this should be deleted. Snowman (talk) 10:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I recall seeing something in a secondary source that I wish I added when I saw it - it is not in the Lancet article nor in the 2013 handbook. I will replace when I see it again Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have put it in hidden text, so that the line can be restored when a more up-to-date ref can be found. Snowman (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About the antivenom: "Adults are typically administered a dose of two vials ...". The manufactures instructions from December 2009 (I presume this still applies) says give one vial. I do not understand why there are different doses in different sources.Snowman (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The author of the 2013 two-vial source (White) published a study in 1998 saying that 75% of cases at that time only used one vial. So I guess practice changed sometime between 1998 and 2013... perhaps it was after December 2009. I guess it's right to go with the more recent study, but if you like we could note that one vial used to be the standard. --99of9 (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is some uncertainty here. I have removed the lines on dosing until this is clarified. This needs to be sourced from up-to-date works. Snowman (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have the 2013 book now - it cites the manufacturer stating 1 vial but states that the current treatment guidelines is two vials. I have now put this in. It also recommends IV over IM but states the latter is used as well. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Might be sensible to put the manufacturer's recommendations in, otherwise the article only mentions the off-label use. Can the 2013 book be a source to summarize the recent discussion on the dose and route of administration? Snowman (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 2013 represents consensus use, hence I do not think that "off-label" is an accurate term. Have moved some discussion material in footnote. I have added the official PI into a footnote - this is noted in the 2013 handbook. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the terminology in the UK this would be off-label use. This means that there are fewer possibilities to claim from the manufacturer should a problem occur. Many drugs for children are not tested in children are used off-label according to experience using the drug. I think that I would put the manufactures exact instructions in the "Antivenom" section, and explain the variance (not sure where). Snowman (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have put the manufacturer's instructions in the treatment bit - and have tried to leave only non-treatment-related material in the antivenom section. I have placed the bit about 500 units of antivenom in the footnotes as it is a bit meaningless really except to doctors Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some organizing mainly in the bites section. The "Signs and symptoms" section is still somewhat disorganized with repetition in the first paragraph and the second paragraph. Also, the whole section needs copy-editing.Snowman (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's had a fair bit of reorganization now - I don't think there's anything repeated and it is structured better Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Treatment section" needs some organizing and copy-editing. Snowman (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I have not seen the 2013 venom handbook for Australian doctors. It is a much expanded and the current version. I would think that the content is likely to be useful for all of the clinical sections. In fact, I would guess that the article would be considered out-of-date without more in-line references from it particularly for modern thinking on the use of the antivenom. Snowman (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional impression. Oppose. Most of the problems that I see within the article are in the bites section, so I have written the provisional impression here. The incidence section looks reasonable. I think that the toxicology section features the vertebrate toxin quite well and briefly mentions insect toxin, but not the other toxins acting on other phyla of creatures (as far as I understand the toxin). More may be known about the insect toxin. I think that the signs and symptoms section seems unnecessarily complex and could be easier to read. Parts of the treatment section have very poor fact to source correlation (i.e. what is in the Wiki text is not even mentioned in the source) and I am certain that text to source integrity is not consistently upto FA standard. This may be the tip of the iceberg and I am not sure to what extent repeated re-editing has disturbed fact to source integrity, so I would recommend more source checking. Other parts use what look like sources that are too old to give an account of the recently controversial topic of anti-venom treatment. Of course, simply copy-editing is not a solution when the sources are inappropriate to support the text that is being copy-edited. To include MedMos standards, and I think this is realistic here, some of the primary sources, newspaper sources, museum source, and online videos may be unsuitable and many more too old. Snowman (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the Rawson and video references. One other accidental source error we are chasing up. It is very difficult to get some information to satisfy comprehensiveness criteria without resorting to some older sources. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding sources: I would recommend a systematic checking of sources particularly for the medical sections. The first source I checked this morning was a 2001 source from an out-of-date version of the Australian antivenom handbook (I have listed this problem above). Of course, the new 2013 version of the handbook is much expanded. Snowman (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am also questioning two non-medical sources under "References" below. Snowman (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional impression 2. The bites section has had a number of changes and a number of old sources have been removed. Some topics are still being discussed. I think checking the extraction of facts from sources needs to be completed. I think that a final phase of reviewing and copy-editing would be needed to ensure that the article is readable and has not gone off at a tangent anywhere. Snowman (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About systemic envenoming; "... associated features include malaise, nausea, vomiting, abdominal or chest pain, generalised sweating, headache, fever, hypertension and tremor." I see these not as associated features, but as key features of systemic envenoming.Snowman (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have rearranged it a little, but it could probably be written better. Snowman (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional impression 3. Support - based on FA criteria 1b 1c 1d 1e, 2a 2b, and 4. As far as I am aware, the content is up to FA standard, but I am only aware of the basics of this topic. I have not focused on MoS. I would think that some reviewers might like to finalise there reviews prior to FA status being awarded, so I hope that the FA is not closed too abruptly. Snowman (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a memo on User:Adrian J. Hunter talk page, because he expressed a wish finish his review, presumably by looking at the bites section. Snowman (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Antivenom. Can the mls of venom in a vial be added and the units of activity of the venom a vial contains.Snowman (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
added - for some reason the PI does not say it is in 1 ml - just need to fetch that from where I read it. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The redback antivenom also appears clinically active against cases of latrodectism caused by Steatoda spiders,[88][89][90]" - needs clarification about the limited use of this. Snowman (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
replaced these refs with Lancet ref (which is secondary source, and notes limited evidence Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly good to have the Lancet, given that it makes recommendations as well. However, I've added the primary references back as well, because that will save readers having to go via Lancet to find out about the original studies. This is all consistent with WP:PRIMARY. --99of9 (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Steatoda spiders cause steatodism, and not latrodectism, so the above line seems odd. Snowman (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"... and lymphatic involvement may result in lower limb pain.[94]" The source is 1997, which is too old. I am puzzled that lymphatic involvement leads to pain. I have never heard of this mechanism for pain in the redback spider bites.Snowman (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - just revisiting the latest sources to revise this - this source will be removed in a few hours reviewed this and removed - wording and features different and explained better in medical sources. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Hundreds[35] or perhaps up to 10,000 people are thought to be bitten by redback". Hundreds seems to be a low estimate and is completely different to low estimates in one of the new footnotes.Snowman (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have taken the first ref and statement as it is way too low and this paper is NZ-based and really about other aspects of the spider (ecological not medical). Am double checking some other secondary sources for incidence Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the incidence can be expressed by an estimated range, which is more representative of a range of RS. Snowman (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
done. --99of9 (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The bites section uses a lot of old references, which would not be permitted with MEDMOS. Nevertheless, without considering MEDMOS (which is fastidious about sourcing), the overall effect in the article of using new and old references is confusing to read and complex to copy-edit. Some longish lines are sourced from two or more in-line references with the sources spanning 10 or 15 years. The task of unscrambling it and putting the in-line references is very complicated. I think I have a rough idea of what the final product should look like. I think that almost all of the old references (older than 5 years) should be removed; however, there might be a consensus about the merits of the sources considering each one individually. Once the up-to-date and suitable references have been selected, then the page can be reconstructed. In other words, I think that it would be easier to rewrite some lines and paragraphs from scratch than using the existing content. I thought that the 2013 handbook would be lucid and I am hoping that it can inspire more improvements and some deletions. I am wondering if it would be easier to copy the bites section to a sup-page of the articles talk page and edit it there. Snowman (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 2013 provides a very succinct and well-laid out summary, which is a little spartan in places. Using the 2011 Lancet Review article and some other bit should provide the most comprehensive and up to date summary. Having read both several times I am getting a better idea. Moving to a subpage might complicate attribution history. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds optimistic. Snowman (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"These concerns have led two handbooks to recommend IV over IM administration in Australian practice"; The first was issued in 1995 and revised in 2001. The second is 2013. The first is no longer current, so what it says in not applicable except in a historical context; see CSL Antivenom Handbook home page and note that it says "Note that this edition is NO LONGER CURRENT". Note emphasis with the capitalization. Does the article refer to the original 1996 versions or to the 2001 version of the first handbook? Why mention the old version at all, except in a historical sense (perhaps in the antivenom secgtion). Snowman (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The two handbooks are 2011 and 2013 now (I replaced the old with the new edition yesterday. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Systemic envenoming is heralded by swollen or tender regional lymph nodes; key features include malaise, nausea, vomiting, abdominal or chest pain, generalised sweating, headache, fever, hypertension and tremor.[51][66][96]". This line has three in-line references all at after the full stop. This may not satisfy WP:V. It is difficult to edit without reading all three references. I doubt that systemic symptoms are always preceded by swollen or tender regional lymph notes in 100% of cases as the line suggests. It is a complex sentence and I think that it needs some unscrambling. Snowman (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re-looked at latest secondary sources instead and used them (interesting as malaise is dropped as a symptom, probably as it is so nonspecfic really)- I can't find the lymph node note in the secondary sources so have removed that. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lymph node swelling does crop up in a number of papers, so that is something to look out for. General malaise is non-specific. Snowman (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Symptoms and signs" section needs the mention proportions, such as; how many bites are mild only, how many are moderate, how many are severe and go to hospital, how many need anti-venom.Snowman (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A rate of 25% (or 1 in 4) is mentioned for systemic involvement in Jelinek 1997. Rates of hospital and antivenom vary widely. Lancet 08 has no figures. Not sure if we will get any other figures from secondary articles. have added that almost all resolved within a week, and 1/2 ro 2/3rds will get significant pain and/or systemic envenomation. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Lancet 2011 review is quite good on comparing the symptoms of various spiders in the genus. The redback stands out as causing more and longer pain. It is just something special about this spider, that might be worth including. Snowman (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This and Jelinek 1997 have some info - which I have placed in venom section Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The horses develop antibodies (Immunoglobulin G)". I think that I know what you mean, but the word immunoblobulin does not occur in the source. As far as I am aware "immunoglobulins" usually refers to the human globulin. I think the animal product might be called antiserum. I have not looked into this yet not what exactly the horse product is. Some definitions are in section 14.2 Passive immunity, 2013 BNF. Any comments?Snowman (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The terms "antibody" and "immunoglobulin" are syonymous and used interchangeably - teh source says "antibody" - it is IgG but I agree I need to find a source to explain why source added now. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... but both "immunoglobulin" and "antibody" are not synonymous with IgG. How do you know horses do not make IgA, IgE, IgD nor IgM? It is probably mainly polyclonal IgG, but I think that it would be best to say "polyclonal antibody" as in the new reference, which have avoided saying IgG. As far as I understand it such polyclonal antibody from horses is called "antiserum". You can go on to talk about the purification process and what is in the anti-venom. I think that the purification of the redback venom is a lot different to that of the black widon antivenom, so the difference could be relevant to the article. Snowman (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the IgG then as it is possibly tangential - it can be discussed in detail on the antivenom article. The sources and article are discussing redback antivenom so I do not understand why you mention black widow at this point Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I added another topic, which I probably did not explain very well. I simply was saying that there are interesting differences in how redback antivenom and black widow antivenom are manufactured, as it is something reviewers might see when looking through references. It might be interesting to explain the manufacture of reback antivenom in more detail, but I suspect that it may be too much detail for the article. The antibodies in redback antivenom are more purified than in the black widow antivenom, hence there are more allergic reactions to the black widow antivenom, which is not used much in USA (as far as I understand it). Snowman (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aaah ok, I understand now - by the looks of things, Antivenom could be tripled in size. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Expansion is possible. The black widow anti-venom sounds awfully impure, but that is off-topic. On-the-other-hand redback spider venom is quite pure (and quite safe), and this is on-topic. Let's concentrate on the basics for now; for example, have you got anything to say something like "most people get better" to start the prognosis section. I am thinking about adding a bit more about serum sickness. Snowman (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how easy it is to miss obvious stuff - but it needs to be referenced. Will look Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have briefly added the F(ab')2 fragments, which I thought was relevant, after looking at a number of articles. It would need some refining and enhancements and there are more sources. I thought that the new image of the split antibody gives an hint of the complex science. I would appreciate feeback before doing adding a little more, perhaps on why the split antibody fragment is safer. Snowman (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am in two minds about this - I did think this was detail better left to the antivenom article when in body of text, but pictorially..don't know. Good to have something different to a psider photo to adorn the article. I will ask a third opinion as I am awaare this FAC has been open for a long time Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had hoped that the FAC would have been completed in October, but there were some prolonged discussions on some straight forward but important issues for a week or two, but these seem irrelevant now following deletion of some doubtful lines and sources. Also, perhaps User Casliber was busy editing articles related to astronomy as well as focusing on this FAC, and there is nothing wrong with that, but I suspect that extensive simultaneous article editing work elsewhere is likely to have prolonged this FAC. Nevertheless, considering how much of the article originally relied on old sources, I probably underestimated how much work was required. I should think that it would be worth keeping the FAC open, perhaps for a few more weeks or however long it takes, for a final phase of copy-editing and checking the sourcing mainly of the bites section. I have asked an editor for an opinion on the bites section. Also, I expect that User:Adrian J. Hunter will consider the bites section at an appropriate time and complete his excellent review. Snowman (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to 2011 ref, and millilitres changed. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"... and also that the antivenom from the vial is diluted in a 100 ml bag of solution for intravenous infusion over 30 minutes.[121]". I would be grateful if you would have another look at this. Excuse me, I think that I have accidentally messed this line up and I do not have access to the 2013 handbook for the up-to-date recommendations. After looking at a number of sources, it seems to me that there are (or has been) two recommended ways of giving the antivenom by the iv route; one is to dilute the antivenom 1 in 10 and then inject it iv (ie with a syringe) and the second is to dilute the antivenom by putting it into a small bag of intravenous fluid (100ml or 200 ml) and then giving is as a slow ivi (ie in a "drip") over about 30 minutes, and especially slowly over the first 15 minutes, while making careful observations for problems. Also, some of these routes of administration are according to the manufacturer's guidelines and some are recommended by authorities following experience with the drug (and off-label). Snowman (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, no - these would be the same thing. One dilutes the antivenom (minimum would be 1:10, but in practice one would just get a 100 ml bag. You then hang it up on a drip stand and let it run in at the desired rate. I do not have the book with me right now but will double check when I get home The exact wording is "For I.V. administration - dilute redback spider antivenom up to 1 in 10 or more...dilution to 100 ml is often used in adults. To avoid fluid overload, use smaller volumes in small children and adults with compromised cardiac function" Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like it can be given diluted with a syringe or in a small bag of fluid, but it is not entirely crystal clear. I will reword the line slightly. Is there anything in an Australian pharmacopoeia or drug data compendium? Snowman (talk) 10:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be unwieldy in a syringe, which would have to be pretty large! This sort of situation would always use a bag I thought. I feel this is getting a bit too specialised for the article really and going to more detail than is needed. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it was injected using a syringe, then a dilution of 1 in 10 would result in a volume of 1.5 ml x 10 = 15 ml, which would be easy to administer using a 20 ml syringe into an ivi line or butterfly. If you had a bag of intravenous solution, then it could be diluted in 100 ml, but no one has suggested putting 100 ml in a syringe. The biggest syringe that I have seen used for iv injections is 50 ml. The nominators have opted to go for a detailed discussion of the medical aspects of the bite here, and I think that adding the details of the administration of this drug is consistent with the rest of the detail. At this juncture, I see no point in skipping this information providing there is good RS to back it up. Snowman (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"... cases of latrodectism caused by Steatoda spiders". Looks odd or wrong, because Steatoda spiders cause steatodism. Snowman (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you see at the bottom are feedback comments - we see them on newspapers etc. They can be safely discounted. The Mike Gray mentioned who is a staff member of the Australian Museum (and is involved in their websites) is the author of a major revision of another genus of spiders so is one of Australia's authorities on spiders, hence I would say the Australian Museum pages are reliable. Raven worked at Qld Museum - not sure who is at Msueum Victoria Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I must have browsed the Australian Museum website and connected the wrong webpage above, so I have now changed it to the same page used in the article. Okay, lets assume the museums are RS for the Wiki, because of the authority of these museums. Snowman (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is something odd, because references 17 and 26 are both redirected to the same webpage on the Australian Museum. Reference 26 is given as an in-line reference to instars and spider development, but the word instar does not appear on the given museum webpage.Snowman (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✔ Done The Australian Museum page has altered content since I used it! I found another article on the web which also uses AustMus as a reference for that fact... Anyway, I've now switched it to a stable source - Andrade studies "penultimates" which are instar 4 for males and instar 5-6 for females. I don't think it's really OR to infer the total. --99of9 (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, there is no need for you to put a big tick when you have done something, because I will strike the initial line when the issue has been resolved. For consistency and clarity, I have reformatted the colour of some of your comments to be consistent with the first colour that you used. This will not change the meaning of anything that you said. The "violet" colour is quite light and has poor contrast and would probably cause some readers visibility problems. Snowman (talk) 10:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"That's not a big tick, this is a big tick ✔." I switched to violet because indigo was too similar to visited links, but I'm not fussed.--99of9 (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please continue to provide updates here in the normal way, but may I suggest that you choose one suitable colour for your text and keep to it for this review. Snowman (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Historical hospital treatments for redback bites include injections of strychnine and cocaine.[12]" The 1897 article appears to say that one person got better after injections of cocaine and strychnine, and it does not use the word hospital. One case is too anecdotal to support what the Wiki article says, even without considering the higher sourcing standards of MedMos. Snowman (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the line has been changed today to "In 1893 one doctor even reported treatment using injections of strychnine and cocaine.[12]". I think that this shows that the topic can not be comprehensibly described from this single source, so I would recommend deleting it with the whole section on historical treatments. Snowman (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy with deleting the section. I do not want to narrow the article to be a medical article, I think it's important to include the breadth of experience with redbacks throughout history. Although some readers will just want to know how to treat their own bites, others will be looking for authenticity in the historical novel they are writing, others will revel in the gruesome and painful methods of old to reflect on how far we've come. I think we can serve them all. --99of9 (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to keep this section, then I think that you will need some better sources. Snowman (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a source for the following addition: "research published in 1973 showed that cocaine actually strengthens the effects of the similar venom from black widow spiders". However, I think we were lucky in this case that further research has been done with cocaine on a similar spider venom. --99of9 (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Intuitively, it looks like there is something wrong with your new line or its context in the article, so I would ask you to double check this. I see it like this, but I might be wrong: when all the neurotransmitter has been explosively released by the effects of the spider venom, then there is little left in the nerve and so the nerve has insufficient neurotransmitter to work normally. Cocaine is likely to help the jeopardized nerve function slightly more effectively. A lot is known about the pharmacology of the black widow spider bite. Further, this is only one of the types of nerve terminals that the spider venom affects. I think that the section on old treatments should be significantly improved or deleted. Snowman (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert, but quoting the abstract: "VLm [the venom] is an agonist in this preparation but fails to induce any response in denervated or reserpinized cat spleen. Cocaine potentiated and phentolamine antagonized the responses induced by VLm." my plain reading indicates that cocaine makes the neurotransmitter release even more favourable. I'm not really clear what you're looking for in this historic treatment section - are you wanting historic postulated medical mechanisms for the ligatures and black coffee? Or are you looking for modern evidence of how good/bad those treatments would be? Also, are you sure an article about a spider and how people used to treat its bites needs mechanisms which may not even have been known at the time of treatment? --99of9 (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you have got this wrong and this is reflected in the new line about cocaine. I think that this is obscure stuff that is not within the scope of the article. The Wiki "Cocaine" article says; "Biologically, cocaine acts as a serotonin–norepinephrine–dopamine reuptake inhibitor, also known as a triple reuptake inhibitor (TRI)." There are a number of points at which drugs can act on the synapse. Snowman (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your hypothesis, but I can't see any other way of reading the experimental conclusion "Cocaine potentiated the responses induced by Latrodectus mactans venom". Mechanistically they are talking about it helping the release of neurotransmitter, not about the reuptake process, but there is an extra paragraph about indirect mechanisms if you know more about this than me. Their raw data is also very clear - see their figure 2. --99of9 (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cocaine is a re-uptake inhibitor. Snowman (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it wasn't. How do you interpret their conclusion: "Cocaine potentiated the responses induced by Latrodectus mactans venom" and why do you think it is inconsistent with the text I have added to the article? Or are you disputing their peer-reviewed findings?--99of9 (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The experiment on cat spleen shows what neurotransmitter was involved, and I do not doubt what the research paper says. Lets go back to the Camperdown newspaper article, which says that the patient's legs were benumbed. The OED says that benumbed means "Rendered torpid or numb; deprived of strength or the power of motion by a chilling influence." To me this implies that the venom had caused weakness - a late symptom of envenomation. It sounds to me that his legs had become weak and this would be likely be due to failure at the synapse (total or near total nerve degranulation) caused by the venom. Nerve conduction was enhanced (synapse enhancement) in the experiment by the venom, so there is no simple analogy with the experiment and the condition of the patient (synapse failing). Cocaine probably would potentate the early phase of envenomation (when the synapses contain granules), but it was used in a phase of muscle weakness (total or near total nerve degranulation) in the patient featured in the old newspaper article. What if the indication for cocaine injections was weakness? - Perhaps, cocaine could enhance the synapse and reverse his weakness, which sounds therapeutic. I am hoping the User Cas Liber will be able find out more about this, because he would have access to the relevant old Australian medical books and up-to-date research papers. I may have this mechanism wrong, but I am sensible enough not to jump to conclusions based on an experiment on cat spleen. Snowman (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask for input from the medicine wikiproject to see if anyone thinks there is value in keeping it or there is consensus for its removal Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw Cas' note at WT:MED about this.
I think this paragraph should be included. The history of medical treatments is interesting and encyclopedic. (Actually, I thought it was more interesting than the rest of the treatment section, which is pretty much three paragraphs of "antivenom = good", which is not news to me.) Wikipedia isn't a medical treatment manual. It's good and valuable to have information beyond the modern medical POV. (I'm not watching this page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
History of medical treatments may have some encyclopaedic value when sourced from adequate information in reliable sources. I would like to know what you thought of the current sources for the history section. Did you have a look at the sources? I hope you revisit this page, because I would like to understand your point of view better. Snowman (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMO all of those sources are RS for the fact that these treatments were used or recommended by someone at some stage. That history is all the paragraph is really about. IMO it doesn't need to be medicalized beyond that, but if there is more RS medical info on these treatments, then I'm happy to accommodate it if you feel it's necessary. Also just noting for the record that a few users at the Australian noticeboard have a similar view to User:WhatamIdoing. --99of9 (talk) 11:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that User WhatamIdoing has chosen to tell us here that he is not watching this page in his only edit on this page, so far. I hope that he revisits this pages and that the can tell us what he thought of the sources. User Kaldari says below that the historical section should be dropped. Two views on the WP:Medicine talk page are that the historical treatments should not be in the same section as the "Treatmetns" section. I have added some factual information about the sources on the WP:Medicine talk page and the WP:Australia noticeboard. The logical thing to do is also ask the WP:Spiders project, so I will leave a message about the dilemma there. I note that User Casliber has asked WP:Medicine, User 99of9 has asked WP:Australian and also WP:Spiders. I hope that a consensus arises about this section on historical treatments. Snowman (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. (I'm a "she", not a "he".)
I think these elderly, third-person primary sources are (barely) adequate to the task of saying that this happened. You are allowed to WP:USEPRIMARY sources occasionally, even in FACs.
If this were primarily an article about spider bites, I'd agree that historical treatments should go under ==History== and any experimental treatments should go under ==Research directions==, because in a 'disease' article, ==History== means history of the disease. But this is primarily an article about an organism, and ==History== here would be the history of the spider, not the much narrower subject of the history of human experiences of and responses to spider bites. It would be silly to create a one-paragraph section called ==Historical treatments for bites==, and it would be worse to dump it in the existing ==History== section, which is all about genetics and classification. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With the hope that the FAC will be finished within about one week or less, I have found some more content for this section and re-written parts of it to strike a balance with various reviewers and nominators wishes - not removing too much and providing some more refs to emphasize caution. Two people on the WP:Medicine supported a separate section for for old treatments and I have kept that group happy as well. Time marches. Snowman (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with a separate section - much better than deleting IMO. Thanks for rewording. --99of9 (talk) 02:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Some reports claim that the redback has the deadliest venom (for equal quantities) of any Australian spider.[75]". The source is The Canberra Times 1966. The line from the Wiki article sounds like wheesel words. It says "some reports", but the Canberra Times is one report and it does not mention any other reports. The Canberra Times reports that the venom is more lethal wt for wt than that of any other creature. Is this Article accurate? I have found websites (not all RS) to say that some box jellyfish have the most dangerous venom of all creatures. Apparently the African wandering spider is in the Guinness book of records for the most venomous spider according to one webpage.Snowman (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can get hold of the other report - the primary source. I expect you're right that the scope was exaggerated to "any other creature", and was probably (given the title) originally limited to Australian land creepy-crawlies, but it's worth finding out. --99of9 (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've now removed that sentence. The scope was indeed exaggerated by the Canberra Times, but the actual scope of the source report was comparing the redback to "any known reptile", which is not really a useful comparison in this context anyway. --99of9 (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This shows one of the pitfalls in using a newspaper as a source. Snowman (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Rawson, Wilhelmina (1894). Australian Enquiry Book of Household and General Information. Pater & Knapton, Printers & Publishers. p. 165 – via Wikisource. [scan]: This is an source is an old general book from 1894 (the first sections are on Wikisourse, but not the latter sections on health). See preface, which says that "Most of the matter is original, and the rest has been carefully selected and tried by herself, and adapted to the requirements of Australian Homes." This does not sound like RS for the Wiki to me. The author also wrote cookery books. She is called Mrs. Lance Rawson in the preface, and I have not been able to find anything about her qualifications.Snowman (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think a popular book of household information saying that this is how to treat spider bites is a self-fulfilling cause of some people treating spider bites that way. So I think it reliably supports the text we use it for ... that tobacco juice was a treatment used in the 1890s. I agree it wasn't necessarily doctor recommended, but it wasn't only doctors that treated spider bites in those days. --99of9 (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry 99of9, I have removed this as it pertains to spider bites in general and not redbacks - also am a little uneasy I have not seen it in other sources. Might be more discussion for spider bites in general. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm fine with it being more general. Given that the majority of medically siginifcant spider bites are redbacks, I'd argue that an Australian recommendation for treating spider bites in general is automatically reasonably pertinent to redbacks, but it's not a strong opinion, and I agree it would be more important if a source specified "redback".--99of9 (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit concerned that this now features on another Wiki article, because I think that the 1894 book does not fit the criteria for a RS on the Wiki. Snowman (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Pinto, J. E. B. (1 August 1973). "Peripheral Adrenergic Effect of Latrodectus mactans Venom". Toxicon. 11 (5): 395–400. doi:10.1016/0041-0101(73)90114-1. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). This is a primary paper. The results regarding strips of cat spleen are used in the same sentence as medical treatment in humans and this seems to me to be out of context.Snowman (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✔ You have removed this now. I agree that if this is all we have on cocaine mechanisms, it's better to leave out the mechanisms and just state that it was used. --99of9 (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the references have redlinks, which are not necessary.Snowman (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✔ removed --99of9 (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Chew, Tony, Sandy and Peter. "Red Back Spider - Latrodectus hasselti". Brisbane Insects. Retrieved 19 September 2013." The authors of the website are the chew family. This is not a RS for the wiki. See the index.html page, which explains that the authors are not professionals and they have written about what they have found.Snowman (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the line and two refs as have not seen this observation repeated elsewhere in other sourcing. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Nature Student". The Central Queensland Herald (Rockhampton, Qld. : 1930 – 1956) (Rockhampton, Qld.: National Library of Australia). 31 December 1936. p. 11." This is from a 1936 newspaper. I have not been able to find out who the author is nor his or her qualifications. The account looks anecdotal and only describes one rather atypical spiders nest. It does not seem to have the features of a RS for the Wiki.Snowman (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Gray, M. R. (7 February 2007). "Latrodectus hasseltii (Family Theridiidae)". Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities: Species Bank. Canberra, Australian Capital Territory: Australian Government. Retrieved 8 September 2013." Page numbers not given to the book. There are a number of problems with references and I have only spot checked a few, so I would suggest that the nominators should check every reference for formatting and completion and report back.Snowman (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a book, it's a web site. --99of9 (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, my mistake. I might have been looking at the book in ref 8 and accidentally went down to 9 (this ref) by mistake. Sometimes, I get distracted with the phone ringing or people talking to me. Snowman (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
""Poisonous Spider Bites". The Queenslander (Brisbane, Qld. : 1866 – 1939). Brisbane, Qld.: National Library of Australia. 8 September 1923. p. 2.". This is used twice as in-line reference. It is used to support "Other common names include red-striped spider,[2] red-backed spider,[3]"; however the newspaper called it the "Red Backed species", which is different and so it does not support the Wiki article.Snowman (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A bit like with wikiproject birds, there was discussion on another FAC to standardise how we report names, hence if something is "Red Backed" we then hyphenate it when we write it on wiki. As far as the "great suffering", I will substitute a medical source which should be used (will double check the Lancet one and some others as we shouldn't be using the newspaper for the medical bit). I have to run off and do chores and can attend to this in a few hours' time Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A better source and wording added for "great suffering" - removed duplicated note on fatalities Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the capitalization of "Red Backed" says it was meant as a name rather than a simple description. --99of9 (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...but the article says "red-backed" and the reference says "Red Backed". There is different capitalization and one is hyphenated. Snowman (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We originally had it exactly as the source did, but Jim's review below suggested grammatical consistency between the names instead. --99of9 (talk) 12:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... but the current version of the spelling and capitalisation is not sourced. 12:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
IMO there's no difference in spelling, just grammar. In any case, I could argue with either of you, but I'm really not fussed which way this falls - I think both are justifiable, depending on whether sourcing or grammatical compatibility are more important to you. Perhaps you and User:Jimfbleak can sort out which version you want. --99of9 (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On thinking about this, I have removed "red-backed" as really only a spelling variation rather than a sustantively different name - if this were a bird article, bird names have seen the gains and losses of hyphens and words stuck together or split (Fairy-wren vs fairywren) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
".. and New Plymouth in the North Island.[52]". The 2002 source says "... and possibly New Plymouth". Could the range have changed since 2002?Snowman (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 2010 Biological Invasions paper says New Plymouth is established. I've moved the location of the citations. --99of9 (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have been trying to replace all these refs with newer ones - two to go Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
""Poisonous Spider Bites". The Queenslander (Brisbane, Qld. : 1866 – 1939). Brisbane, Qld.: National Library of Australia. 8 September 1923. p. 2.". The newspaper says that it causes great suffering, and that it takes several weeks to recover after that and not that the great suffering take several weeks. Also, If the "great suffering" is a quote, then the source should be included in the text of the article.Snowman (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded and added an inline attribution to the quote. --99of9 (talk) 05:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
", the bite can cause "great suffering" (Dr F. Tidswell)[103]". Not conventional. Snowman (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Several citation references are not formatted correctly with "|first=full name". There are separate fields for the first and the last name and this should be used. This diff from the citation bot shows were some problems are.Snowman (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Tulich, Katherine (9 May 1992). "Oz invaders: who they are, how they sound. (Australian musical acts) (Spotlight on Australia)". Billboard. 104 (19): A6. ISSN0006-2510.". The issn link goes to worldcat, where only Billboard magazines over about 100 years old are archived. Is there a more relevant link? Have I missed something.Snowman (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a link to the Trove item page, but the original is in a paywall archive. The source fact upon which I base my text is: "The most recent release, "Red Back Fever," was recorded in Sydney with English producer Steve James. Its title takes its name from the killer Australian Red Back spider." --99of9 (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Red Back Fever album that I have been talking about by The Angles was produced by Terry Manning. Which album are you talking about? Snowman (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think everything's fine. Both Steve and Terry are listed on the credits for your stub's source. --99of9 (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Daly, Frank; Hill, Robert E.; Bogdan, Gregory M.; Dart, Richard C. (1 January 2001). "Neutralization of Latrodectus mactans and L. hesperus Venom by Redback Spider (L. hasseltii) antivenom". Clinical Toxicology. 39 (2): 119–23. doi:10.1081/CLT-100103826. PMID11407496.". This is a research paper from 2001. It is too old and a primary paper, so it should not be used to source medical information, particularly for an off-label use of the antivenom. Snowman (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to figure which of the newer summary refs states it which other species it can be used for. I suspect they just say "other species" rather than list them. I think that is sufficient for this article, though the information on which species it has worked for might be good for the latrodectism article. Anyway, it is late here so will look for a few more minutes before going to sleep Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Culture section;
"The Angels' named their 1991 album Red Back Fever.[124] "; The track list does not mention spider nor redback. I guess that the image on the album shows a man in a threatening pose about to strike out with a stick. The in-line source to a book does not specify what type of red back is referred to. I do not know much about this, but I guess that it is worth double checking the relevance to spiders. See details of the album on goldenmp3.ru. Are any of the tracks about the redback spider or its bite? Is "red back fever" an alternative name for "lactodecism"? Different artwork is seen on a limited edition CD version, which has a spider on the cover; see discogs.com. Is this small print stuff?Snowman (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The track list mentions "Red Back Fever", and since it's sometimes called a "Red Back Spider", I think from an Australian band that's a clear enough indication that the two are linked (especially given the spider image you mention below when they re-release one of the tracks as a single). The actual lyrics don't mean much to me, so I can't confirm whether they're talking about the syndrome, and I can't see any extra reliable secondary material. --99of9 (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not heard of the illness being called red back fever - is there a RS for that? The actual title of the tracks do not seem to be anything to do with spiders. One of the album covers is a man with a stick, so the spider may have been only a pun or incidental. To me the redlink to the Angel's album says that is is not significant. Do we really want to see a mention of every animal that appears on a record cover in Wiki species pages? Is this within the scope of the article? Is is trivia? A famous LP with a cockatoo on its cover does not feature on a Wiki species pages; see Bella Donna (album). Snowman (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lyrics to the song "Red Back Fever" are www.songlyrics.com. It is not about spiders. I think that the LP name is bit of a red herring. I do not know why there is a picture of a red back spider on the CD cover. Snowman (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've found an extra music industry ref (Billboard magazine) saying that the album takes its name from the spider. I think this is good enough to include, and makes it a clearer link between the topics than just having a cockatoo on the cover. --99of9 (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a new stub for the Angle's LP Red Back Fever. When I was looking details for the Stub, I did not see any connections to to spider except for the spider images on two of the later album covers. Snowman (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I do not know what a Billboard magazine is. Are Billboard magazines RS on the Wiki?Snowman (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See my answer to the point above. It is a pretty prominent international music industry magazine. It seems very reliable about music topics. --99of9 (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have just noticed a picture of a redback spider on the inner sleeve. Snowman (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possible omission; See Once Bitten Twice Shy on lyse.net, by the Angels'. The image on the cover looks like an imaginary weaponized redback spider to me. I do not know much about this, but it may be an omission.Snowman (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That track was also on the Red Back Fever album we already refer to. I don't think it has special relevence to the spider, because the song they were covering was already in circulation from another source. They just put a spider pic on the case when they released it as a single. --99of9 (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I do not think that this should be included; however, the Wiki article does seem to be imbalanced to mention one record cover, but not another. Snowman (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possible omission: This is a modern version of songs by Slim Newton and the cover has a huge red back (looks like the size of two hands combined) on the cover and several of the songs are about the redback. The article appears to have featured only a single track, with out mentioning the bigger topic of the whole LP. I note that Slim Newton has a redlink. How important is he in Australia? Snowman (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He is a country singer that is not well known outside country music circles. I suspect he would satisfy general notability guidelines. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might be fun to make a Stubs for Slim Newton's LP and EP both called "Redback on the toilet seat" and on the Hadley label. It would be fair-use to put an image of the EP record cover showing the spider for the infobox image. The original vinyl LP has a picture of SN holding his guitar standing outside a wooden outside toilet hut. The stub could be wiklinked in the redback spider article. "DYK that the country music singer SW's album called "Redback on the toilet seat" featured a comical drawing showing a impossibly large redback spider on a toilet seat". Snowman (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My personal preference is to leave redlinks as bait for someone who's more interested than me in the related topic. So I've linked Redback on the Toilet Seat. But if anyone is keen or wants to take the bait, go for it. I notice you've already put together something simple for Red Back Fever, nice. --99of9 (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that one cricket team features in the culture section. The dab at redback includes four Australian teams. What decision process were undertaken when choosing one Australian team? Should more teams be included? Is this trivia? Snowman (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is clearly notable - the next three are very obscure and might struggle to fulfil general notability guidelines. I would add if a secodanry source discussed, but I think the state cricket team is notable enough to add on a primary (though secondary would be better), which has been done - it is high profile Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The other teams have Wiki pages, so they are probably known to some extent. In the UK some of the club football sides are extremely prominent in the news. Snowman (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a redback on a shield of a club side; see boroondara Rugby Club. The Song Thrush page has the bird in the shield of a club side and that is on the Wiki species page. It seems that the redback spider might be more popular as a symbol for sports teams than the article suggests, including Australian rules teams outside Australia. Snowman (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Local district rugby is a very minor sport in Melbourne. Need to think about what and how to include. For instance, for the top division of Victorian_Rugby_Union, none of the clubs have webpages. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, there are many of them! Would like to get some sort of summary or note but we are a bit hamstrung by sourcing policies. I will think about what to do. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're allowed to stop when we think they no longer have significance enough to affect the topic at hand - the cultural impact of redbacks spiders. So far everything we've listed is something that many Australians have would potentially come into contact with, apart from the aboriginal use, and the ultralight plane. The broader interest in those are justified by the secondary sourcing. --99of9 (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, I should be clearer; it is worth just saying something like; "it is used in the name of many sports teams especially in Australia." I do not know much about this, but I have found many sports teams called "redback xyz team" by internet searches. Would this be common knowledge in Australia? Snowman (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to that, it's clearly true, but I don't have a simple way of sourcing it. I don't think it's common knowledge (I didn't know it), but I doubt it would surprise anyone. --99of9 (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it were up to me, I'd gladly put a sentence like that in - but I suspect it would be removed without a source even though perfectly obvious in a basic google search. So I am saving myself the trouble of seeing it cut out now Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possible omission; Redback boots. Does the article underestimate the cultural use of the name of the spider?Snowman (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we're a little hamstrung by lack of secondary sources discussing these - I have heard of and owned blundstone boots but not heard of this range. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a brief sentence including a secondary source, and created a simple stub for the company. For a time these boots were standard issue for the army. I couldn't find a secondary reference explaining the connection to the spider, so have had to link directly to their webpage.--99of9 (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great find. That is a perfect picture for the cultural impact section. Added. I haven't checked the source myself, but it looks legit. --99of9 (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When searching possible problem issues for FACs, I sometimes find some surprises and finding this was one of the surprises. Snowman (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some people think that the ending of an FA has some relevance. I would probably aim for a readable culture section to end the article with, although it is not a FA criteria.Snowman (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do to - I think ending with a humorous song and a giant redback statue is quite an ending Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
images are fine, captions are good. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Female redback guarding egg sac, note the male at left (circled)". There is nothing about guarding egg sacs in the text, so this guarding phenomenon is not referenced. The female spider is near to the egg sac, but I am not convinced that the image conclusively shows that the spider is guarding the egg sac, because she could have settled there to wait for prey or she may have gone to sleep there (these are guesses). Alternatively, the image is consistent with the female guarding the eggsac. I am aware that this is what the image description on Commons says, but the reasons for this analysis are not explained. Is there anything about guarding in sources that would support this caption?Snowman (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought about that - "guard" removed Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is an image to the left and another to the right of text in the description section, so that the text is squashed between two images.Snowman (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that this was fixed after another reviewer pointed this out. Snowman (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there is a date associated with the range map, so it would be better to put the date in the caption.Snowman (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just the year would be fine, I think Snowman (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the captions says "household deck" and this term is not in use in the UK. Does it mean deckchair or Deck (building)?Snowman (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not actually in a house, so I have put garden deck. I hope that has the same meaning outside the UK. Snowman (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're never *in* a house, but they're almost always attached to a house. On the other hand, they're also almost always next to a garden, so garden is fine if it helps the UK understand. --99of9 (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the sperm is then stored in spermathecae, organs of the female reproductive tract, and can be used to lay several round white egg sacs.—how can the sperm be used to lay anything, needs rephrasing
✔ see how it reads now. 99of9 (talk) 10:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
a colleague of his.—his colleague
hmmm, but the latter implies to me his one and only colleague, whereas the former is one (possibly of many) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
a colleague? Although you could probably justify his anyway. You don't name a species after the tea-person Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
red-striped spider,[7] red backed spider,[13] red spot spider,—hyphenation
If I remember right, I used the exact names used by the sources. Should I correct their grammar? 99of9 (talk) 10:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would. looks inconsistent as it stands, and it's your prose... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hyphenated them now for consistency - as we could argue that our hyphenating rules would be applicable... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
deep black colour... light brown in colour,—"colour" redundant
The vertical strands serve two purposes, it snares prey and small insects and can be lifted in the air, and secondly acts as a trip wire to alert the spider to the presence of prey or threats—"the strands... it snares... acts" plural noun becomes singular half way through
N-3-methylbutyryl-O-(S)-2-methylbutyryl-L-serine 3)—why the detached bold 3
Good find. It's probably an abbreviation used to refer to that molecule throughout the original paper - I'll check when I'm inside the paywall. 99of9 (talk) 10:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✔ Done Ok, that was it. I've removed the 3 and corrected the markup for accurate chemical nomenclature.99of9 (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2 vials IV is administered followed by an additional 2 vials if there is no response after 2 h—spell out the twos
No further queries, and Snowman's concerns seem to be on the way to resolution, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"He named it in honour of A.W.M. van Hasselt, a colleague of his" - probably "He named it in honour of colleague A.W.M. van Hasselt."
done (why didn't I see that particular wording before...) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"he named a female with an all-black abdomen L. scelio,[3] collected from Cape York,[4] now regarded as the same species." - probably "he named a female from Cape York with an all-black abdomen L. scelio, now regarded as the same species." (Will need to check where the refs go.)
For the long sentence, try "However, the male katipo is too heavy to mate with the female redback, as it triggers a predatory response in the female when it approaches the web, causing the female to eat it." No need to link predatory here as the link doesn't lead specifically to something about triggered behavioural pattern.
"The female's red stripe also develops through this process, starting as a red spot, then multiple spots which later merge" - the grammar's not quite right, and this doesn't seem to be supported by the source. Actually that's an odd choice of source - why cite a physical description to a 1907 newspaper article?
The source reads "The red marking at first appears as a small spot, then, as the spider becomes older it assumes a series of dots, and these eventually merge into the characteristic broad red stripe", which I think supports my text. Most modern descriptions don't give blow by blow accounts of development, so this is just the best I've found. I consider it pretty reliable on this kind of point because the author was a fellow of the entomological society. 99of9 (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found the above quote about juvenile spiders near the end of the 1907 article. The 1907 newspaper article does not mention the white lines of juvenile spiders, so the 1907 description looks inconsistent with what is currently source 17. As far as I am aware, conflicting sources need careful mention on the Wiki. The 1907 article describes adult spiders near the beginning of the article with "... and the Australian species a broad longitudinal bar running nearly the entire length of the abdomen, with frequently small lateral spots or patches." I am puzzled by the lateral red spots described in the 1907 paper and I note mention of these spots is mysteriously excluded from the Wiki article. Snowman (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is frustrating as some of the more "guidebook/identification" type articles like the museum ones are fairly brief and do not discuss colour variants. I've seen all-black redbacks in my laundry occasionally (I must have found 30-40 in this and my last house I've lived in!), and have only seen it mentioned in a couple of sources. I do recall seeing something about lateral spots somewhere else and will take a look Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Help me understand what's in conflict? I believe that juveniles have both white lines and stripes broken into spots. Just like the picture we have of a juvenile. Just because the sources chose to mention different aspects, doesn't make them conflicting. I'm not sure about the lateral spots. --99of9 (talk) 10:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The two descriptions of the spider in the two references are different and both the juvenile and adult spiders are described in both articles. One does not mention white lines on juveniles and the other does not mention lateral spots of adults. The article has a selection some aspects of one article and some aspects of another journal to form an account of the of a spider's appearance that is not in-line with either reference separately. If there is variability in spider appearance, then this can be acknowledged and incorporated in the article.Snowman (talk) 11:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the female goes through so many instars, I have no problem with (and have seen) grey spotty spiderlings and immature ones as photographed. I suspect Rainbow is right on the other though it is weird that this development is not mentioned anywhere else and am a bit confused. It is very late here and I am going to sleep to think about this one. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To update, I've removed the line in question, mainly as I have not seen it discussed anywhere in newer sources, which seems odd really. Given this is 106 years old, I would have thought someone would have written something similar in the meantime. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ecology and behaviour
"the female spins a web during the night,[8] usually in the same location for most of its adult life." - should that actually be "her adult life"? I'm not certain, but calling a female "it" sounds weird to me.
That's all for now. I hope to continue later this weekend, though I'm busy with work so no promises. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 00:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great – apart from ongoing discussion about the description, all my above suggestions are nicely resolved. I made a bunch of minor tweaks myself that I assumed would be uncontroversial, but please let me know if there are any objections. Continuing...
"The vertical strands serve two purposes, they snare prey and small insects and can be lifted in the air, and secondly act as a trip wires to alert the spider to the presence of prey or threats". This is a comma splice. Suggest "The vertical strands serve two purposes: they act as trip wires to alert the spider to prey or threats, and can snare prey, lifting it into the air."
"The female withdraws to the funnel during cooler weather." – not sure what you're saying here, as earlier in the paragraph, it states the funnel/retreat is where the spider is found.
they also move around the web, but in cooler months are more in the funnel and move less. elaborated/clarified. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Redbacks usually prey on insects, but can capture larger animals that become entangled in the web, including king crickets..." – King crickets are insects, so this sounds odd. Either omit them, or change to "prey on small insects" (if appropriate).
omitted --99of9 (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...while one web..." – no simultaneity or contradiction here, change to "and one web"
"...which brings their hunters" – referring to redbacks? I understand "hunt" to imply "pursue". Suggest changing to "which attracts the spiders" or whatever.
"a creature blundering into a trap line" – doesn't match my dictionary's definition of blunder; suggest "a creature becoming ensnared" or whatever the ref supports
"If the male is accepted by a female" – sounds odd after the preceding sentence, which implies one of them should have been eaten. Is the defeated spider always eaten? Also, need to fix "the male" vs "a female".
this is as a potential mate - it is supposed to not lead on from the previous. Might need a rejig amd will think about how to do it. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"have been recorded parisitising redback eggs" – probably just "parasitise redback eggs", unless the recording is thought to be anomalous (in which case it might not be worth mentioning). Also "preying on redback eggs" --> just "prey on redback eggs".
"How males find females is unclear, and it is possible they may resort to ballooning like juveniles." – Why "resort to"? To me this suggests ballooning is somehow an undesirable course of action.
"A female spider may lay four to ten egg sacs," – is this over her lifetime?
I think so but am not entirely sure - quite possibly as they only live 2-3 years. Will try and find some info to confirm one way or the other Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see Distribution and habitat is currently undergoing editing, so I'll leave it there for now, and return during the week. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I've been absent for so long. I've made some more suggestions below. I'll go through ==Bites== over the next day or two, then check whether all my comments are resolved, and if so, I'll support on criterion 1(a). (Please ping me if I become the last reviewer awaiting comment.) Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Distribution and habitat
"Queensland researchers Raven and Gallon also felt its preference for habitats altered by humans to be further evidence of this." – Needs a ref, and researchers "argue" or "suggest" rather than "feel".
The Forster95 ref covers this whole argument - but will see if I can access the original statement by Raven and Gallon Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a suggested rewording of two sentences into one, though it's far from perfect: "Webs are usually built in dry, dark, sheltered sites, such as in logs, tree hollows, shrubs, old tyres, sheds, outhouses, letterboxes, empty tins, or empty boxes; among rocks, rubbish, litter, or children's toys; and underneath toilet seats."
Not sure I agree - this suggested rewording makes it more listy, which I don't think is a good thing... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possible omission: Despite how common redbacks are in backyards, I've never seen one inside a house (excluding sheds or dunnies). Is there a ref that supports me on that point?
Hmm, this video appears to show them in a house...but I wonder if it's been staged. Will double check the refs on this....as my personal experience gells with yours.. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not worried about a counter-example, as I didn't meant to imply they never occur indoors, just that it seems surprisingly rare. Just thought a source somewhere might mention it. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frustrating - as sources generally list places that are not inside houses, but do not explicitly say they are not (or only rarely) found inside houses Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Some experts recommend..." – Please clarify as the source only mentions one.
Changed to "The Entomology Department of CSIRO..." as it was the Publicity Officer of the department, hence we can assume he was making a departmental statement... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"spider insecticides" – Ick. Please change both instances of "insecticide" to "pesticide". (I realise the first of the two cited sources uses "insecticide", but it sounds ridiculous.)
The third paragraph reads oddly. I think what you want is something like "Spiders in the French territory of New Caledonia in the Pacific were identified as L. hasselti in 1920, based on morphology. Their behaviour differs from Australian redbacks, as they do not engage in sexual cannibalism and are less prone to biting humans. ..."
Ok, that reads nicely. Done. --99of9 (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does "ambulation" provide any nuance that plain "walking" does not?
"The signs have led to confusion, as the native Latrodectus elegans is also commonly known as the redback spider." – The cited source says nothing about that. Surely the Japanese spider would be known by a Japanese name?
Am perplexed as I think the wrong source was added or one was omitted somehow - 99of9 added this one. Many cirtters from non-English speaking countries have English as well as their own language names. Will have a look and alert once addressed.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this was the addition by an IP, and I can't se anything in any sources pertaining to this so it goeth. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole Introductions section reads a bit like a shopping list. It needs some kind of introductory sentence that states that redbacks have travelled from Aus to various countries around the world. Such a sentence may work better if the order of the paragraphs is reversed.
I reversed paras and added a short intro para. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Slim Newton popularised redbacks..." – I may be wrong, but I think this is incorrect use of "popularised", as the song does not present redbacks favourably.
now "drew popular attention to redbacks" --99of9 (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"... described sightings of hand-sized redback spiders" – Is there an elegant way to clarify that they don't really grow this big? Or am I being overly finicky here?
Now that you've drawn my attention to it again, I'm considering cutting this info, because I can't find a web reference to it. The lyrics on the web seem different. I've asked for help at Talk:The_Angels_(Australian_band)#Red_back_fever. --99of9 (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through all the lyrics for that album, and cannot find anything about hand-sized spiders, so have now cut the sentence back to a simple album name. I'll keep track of any followup on the band talk page or from the editor who inserted that line.--99of9 (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All good. If the lyric does turn out to be legit, something like "... described sightings of impossibly large redbacks" might provide clarification. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest rewording to "The redback appears in the name and emblem of the South Australia cricket team", which is simpler, and avoids the gratuitous reference to their (current) sponsor.
Airborne Redback does not belong in "See also" as it contains no information about the spider. It should be worked into "Cultural impact" with a short sentence.
They look good, thanks. --99of9 (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 99of9 and Cas Liber for all the changes so far. I've struck resolved comments. Out of steam now, hoping to finish up over the next day or two... Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for disappearing again. I've been snowed under with work, and will be for another day, possibly longer. I'd have liked to have one last read through, but I realise this FAC has been going forever, and given Laser Brain's and Hamiltonstone's supports, I won't object if this FAC is closed. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The FAC has taken a long time because it need a lot of work. I think that much of the article is quite new and probably might still contain some problems, so I would like to see your review of the bites section. If you have not seen the article for a while, then it might almost be like you are reading it for the first time, unlike some of us here how might be blind to some of the readability problems having read other articles and books about the spider. Snowman (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well I'm happy to take a look, so long as everyone doesn't mind waiting until tomorrow. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 00:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✔ wikilinked --99of9 (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The new spider blue wikilink is continuous with a another blue wikilink, so the two wikilinks look like one wikilink. Snowman (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"cosmopolitan genus Latrodectus, the widow spiders" The common name for the group is only mentioned in lead for some reason, while it would make sense to mention it in the article itself (it is once, but only way down, taxonomy would be a better place for first occurrence).
As mentioned above, the text under description is "sandwiched" between two images.
✔ hourglass moved to discussion of subdividing Latrodectus, where it is also relevent --99of9 (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think more images wouldn't hurt. Only the first half has images, and they're all kind of squashed together. I know there may not be many that are obviously relevant in other sections (and I know "decorative" images are somewhat frowned upon), but I for one find the latter half less amusing singly because of the lack of images. There seem to be some rather nice images on Flickr: [11] For example, an image that show the pinchers, or the animal close to human habitation, could make sense under the large unillustrated poison section.
I've added a pic showing the proximity to humans. What I'd really like for that section is a photo of a bite... but unfortunately not many people are committed enough to pull out the camera when they've been bitten. --99of9 (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the article could be more ambitions with images as well; however, I have not mentioned it because it probably does not affect possible FA status. Snowman (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't an FA criterion, but it certainly doesn't hurt to point such out in the process. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence is unnecessarily complex: "the history of classifying the Latrodectus genus is of fluctuations reflecting the difficulty of using the shape and appearance of these spiders to determine subdivisions." It doesn't seem the writing enhances understanding or conveys any extra information.
I added that line. It is referenced and met with approval above. I have simplified it to "Before DNA analysis, the taxonomy of the Latrodectus genus has seen fluctuations reflecting the difficulty of using the morphology of these spiders to determine subdivisions.". I expect that it could be improved further. Snowman (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough, my main problem was this part, which you've changed: "the history of classifying the Latrodectus genus is of fluctuations reflecting". Unnecessary mouthful. FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No word of how long the legs are or something like that? Description seems a bit short.
I have been frustrated as all the descriptions have been brief - I can't find a source that discusses the fangs either! Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This long line could be broken in two: " The vertical strands act as trip wires to initially alert the spider to the presence of prey or threats, and also snare and haul prey into the air, when weaker horizontal strands that hold them down, known as guy lines, break when prey thrash around."
"and it is possible they may balloon like juveniles" Would make more sense if you had used the term balloon for the flying before.
whoops, added sentence describing behaviour as ballooning in the life cycle section Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Production involves the milking of venom from thousands of redbacks and inoculating horses with it." Are the horses immune?
No, their immune system reacts to the venom, causing the production of antibodies... which are then extracted and injected into humans. (See antivenom) --99of9 (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know how the horses are prepared for such large venom injections. Anti-venom horse IgG antibodies (the key ingredient of antivenom) are made by the horse's immune system and this would stay in the horse's blood compartment (in healthy horses). Of course, this IgG will bind to venom injected in the horse. I think that this means that the horses become immune to the spider's venom. Purified antivenom is injected into a victim of a spider bite and the injected horse IgG in human blood will bind to venom, and so the bound venom does not reach nerve endings where it is toxic. I understand that the horses used live about 5 years, shorter than the expected 20 years. Interestingly, some research is being done in making Brazilian spider venom synthetically in Brazil (see Biting back: Taking the sting out of spider venom). Snowman (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ready to support, once my second point is addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - everything fixed nicely. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A quick further note, given the context, the following caption of the last image seems ludicrous: "The spider especially its head is not anatomically correct". Mickey Mouse isn't "anatomically correct either, but it would be besides the point to note that if there was a picture of him in the mouse article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that you raised that point. May I advance the discussion. Most people know what a mouse looks like. It is very hard to find a reference for the colour the eyes of a redback spider and this has not been sourced for the article yet. The statue looks like the spider has two eyes, but the real spider has eight eyes. We do not have any other pictures of the head of a redback spider in the article yet. The eyes and fangs are completely wrong in the sculpture, so this is worth mentioning, I would say. I think that it is a reasonable factual point for the caption, which is placed near the end of the article. If you would like to accurately describe the head of a redback spider then you can add it to the description section or make a drawing of one for us. Snowman (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See I would say that looking at that spider it is very obviously a fairly crude representation of a spider and in no way is trying to be anatomically or morphologically accurate - not of the abstractness of Mickey Mouse my any means but still somewhat simplified - so I think the parenthetical addendum is unnecessary Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How many people would think that the spiders had two eyes after looking at the sculpture? It was originally called a model in the article, which suggested a likeness. It is the only image of the spiders head in the article. Snowman (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a giant spider monster attacking a toilet. I don't think the lack of realism is lost on anyone. FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the caption focusing on the head saying that the head is not anatomically correct. There are a number of giant things in Australia, see Australia's big things. Representing things with a giant sculpture or stature appears to be quite common in Australia and some of them are quite realistic with correct colours and proportions. Remember, the article has not even described the head nor the colour or number of its eyes yet. I think that a viewer might tend to remember the picture of the anatomically incorrect giant spider and may be vulnerable to thinking that the spider has two red eyes. Looking at this image prompted me to search for more anatomical features of the spider and I was surprised to find out that it has eight eyes. User Casliber replied that he did not not find out anything about the spiders eyes. How will a viewer know that the spider does not have two red eyes, if its eyes are not described in the article. Snowman (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most spiders have eight eyes, that's why there's not much description beyond colouration, spider body plans are basically the same. As for eye colour, a glance at the taxobox image shows you they're not red. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would drop the historical treatments paragraph. It doesn't really add anything useful to the article and seem like a unnecessary tangent. Plus I'm sure someone will end up trying to inject themselves with strychnine and cocaine because of it :) Kaldari (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting to think this is the consensus, but will wait and see if any other opinions arise (but likely remove) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How (from whose perspective) are you evaluating usefulness? Although some readers will just want to know how to treat their own bites, others will be looking for authenticity in the historical novel they are writing, others will revel in the gruesome and painful methods of old to reflect on how far we've come. Is there a reason not to serve them all? Would it appease the medically-focused amongst us to somehow split this into a history section? --99of9 (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same concerns that people might misunderstand it. Thankfully, there is a disclaimer at the bottom of every Wiki article. The current lines will be just as bad in a history section, in my opinion. The only thing that will make is acceptable or useful is a coherent account created using reliable sources, but that would not necessarily bring it into the scope of this article. Snowman (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason to ditch the paragraph. I think its first sentence ("Most traditional or historical first-aid treatments ... are useless or dangerous") takes care of concerns about misunderstanding. But it doesn't merit a level 2 (==) heading. I suggest renaming ===Treatment=== to ===Modern treatment===, and incorporating this section immediately before it as ===Historical treatment===. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the referenced new first line that I added helps to reduce misunderstanding. Please note that two editors commented on the position of the "Historical treatments" section on the WP:Medicine talk page, probably soon to be archived, and these opinions were key to the current layout; however, it is not set in stone. There are a lot of opinions about this section and there have been compromises all round. Snowman (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Currently, this antivenom is recommended by the manufacturer to be given intramuscularly (IM) rather than intravenously (IV)… Due to these concerns IV is now the recommended route of administration in Australian practice." This seems contradictory, or at least confusing. Who exactly is recommending the IV route? Kaldari (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it the manufacturer recommeds one thing, but the practitioners and clinical researchers recommend another. --99of9 (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I brought this up for discussion above. The article may need a wikilink to Off-label use written in. This is usually called an off-licensed use in the UK. I can imagine difficulties doing clinical research trials to find out the usefulness of IV anti-venom injections. Snowman (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see, the Wiki article mislead me. On the drug data pdf it says that antivenom can be given iv for life threatening bites only, so only this indication is not off-licence for giving antivenom by the iv route. For less severe envenoming it is given im it says. I think that the article needs amending to reflect this. Also, note the definitions of rare, common and so on, because this is wrong in the article. Note the need for adrenaline to be handy. Note the dangers of giving antivenom. Note the need to be treated in hospital for severe envenoming. It should easy to amend the article using the pdf as a source. Again, I wonder if this is within the scope of the article or not; however, it does need to be accurate and unambiguous wherever it belongs. Snowman (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
adjusted now. These should be in as they are specific to this antivenom Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is still a problem, because the Wiki article says that the manufacturer recommends iv for severe bites and im for less severe bites. The article goes on to say; "... IV is now the recommended route of administration in Australian practice.". This would suggest that it would be used iv for all cases, and therefore when it is used iv for non-severe cases, this indication would be off-license. Snowman (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The new text still doesn't address my concern. If IV use is recommended by practitioners and clinical researchers, the article should say that. Right now it just says it is "the recommended route of administration", which contradicts the first sentence, as apparently there are multiple, conflicting recommendations (thus it can't be the recommended route). Kaldari (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It gets murkier than that, I just came across this, showing the lack of consensus among Emergency physicians in Australia. I am in the process of rewording the section to illustrate this I have reworded to reflect the sources - i.e. the manufacturer recommends IM, two handbooks recommend IV....(note that neither of these are official guidelines), and there is no consensus among Emergency doctors. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The new wording (just mentioning what is typically used rather than what is recommended) works for me. Kaldari (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The female gets a whole paragraph but the one-sentence male description seems rather light compared to it. Is there nothing more that can be added?Simon Burchell (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the males are tiny things - getting any detail in the description has been very hard.... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I know that the section mentions the size of the male and female, but maybe a sentence saying that the male is very small compared to the female?Simon Burchell (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been dropping in a few wikilinks - feel free to remove them if they seem inappropriate. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All looked good - I did reinstate the outdoor toilet link as it was discussed above and felt pertinent Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Toxicology
"similarity to the equivalent molecule across the Latrodectus mactans clade" - shouldn't mactans be in italics also?Simon Burchell (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
changed - some papers have not italicised clades named after species whereas others (like the source for this one) do.... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - another fine article. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've not been following this FAC recently but have been aware of a lot of work going on. Revisiting the article, it now seems that roughly 40% of the prose text of an article that is supposed to be about a spider is now discussing bites, venom and treatment - this is even higher if you ignore the lead. This seems to be disproportionate. Might I suggest splitting the article? This discussion of bites etc. is in danger of swamping discussion of the species. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this does reflect the literature as there is alot of material on being bitten - redback spider antivenom is the most commonly used in Australia. There are already daughter/target articles which should be where greater detail lies (latrodectism for the syndrome of being bitten, and latrotoxin for the venom). If you see further up this FAC there is some discussion on what bits should be solely in daughter articles and I am very happy for more input on what should be placed in those articles. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the whole signs and symptoms and treatment etc. aren't really about the spider at all, and would be better off in a "Redback spider bite" article or somesuch - although I also understand that you may want to keep it here. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See, I'd disagree here - bit like when we do a deadly poisonous mushroom we'd devote alot to the toxins and treatment...or if I ever get round to Budgerigar, it would have quite a bit on breeding and colour variations (though this subject would be expanded in a daughter article!). One of the headaches is that having looked at the literature I can see how the surrounding/daughter articles could be greatly expanded to highlight that this is a potted summary, but they aren't expanded much - so expanding them becomes a part of this as well...another day another article. But I will try and think what we can do. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The binomial/trinomial authorities given for the synonyms should not have brackets if the binomens/trinomens are in their original combinations (which they appear to be). 80.229.88.50 (talk)
By Jove, you're right....parentheses removed as they were all originally named as Latrodectus... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good article. On balance, I would say I support it. I'm not entirely convinced about how the venom issue is handled, but there is no one 'right' solution, and a lot of work has been done to try and get an acceptable text here.
I have left one query on the article talk page about clarity of a section.
tried reworking the misleading wording there...tricky though Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First use of "envenomation" - can this be linked or explained?
Crikey, there's a lot of traffic here... well, yes, there do seem to be some prose issues. I'm doing some copyediting as I look around. Otherpoints:
"no deaths (or possibly one)" - this is not necessary, as the footnote explains the possibility there may have been one death. simply write "no deaths", and let the footnote stand. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea I hadn't considered. Done. --99of9 (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A fact I don't think we care about and I would remove: "Pure alpha-latrotoxin has an LD50 in mice of 20–40 µg/kg". Least of all in a subsection of the section on humans! hamiltonstone (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that bad, is it? It would be problematic doing experiments on humans. I think that the minute quantities are telling. I presume that the alpha-latrotoxin is from redback spiders (might need double checking), but there is more information on black widow venom. Snowman (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean about the minute quantities, but I don't think it is meaningful enough to the reader, and of limited use since we've been told that there are other toxins in the venom besides alpha-latrotoxin, and we've been given the more significant and understandable info about the venom's toxicity in the lab. See also below. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck this point, as I eventually decided that maybe Snowman was right, and it wasn't so bad. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Argh. "Other high-molecular-weight proteins that have been isolated include the insect-specific neurotoxins α-latroinsectotoxin and δ-latroinsectotoxin, a neurotoxin affecting crustaceans, and small peptides that inhibit angiotensin-1-converting enzyme. These have been recovered from the Mediterranean black widow (L. tredecimguttatus); the venom of the redback, although little-studied, likely has similar agents". This para is an untidy web of problems. If I read the last phrase correctly, it implies that none of the information in this paragraph is about toxins specifically from the redback. Yet the first phrase ("other...proteins that have been isolated...") suggests we are talking about the redback. Then there is the reference to two neurotoxins, but it is followed by "..., a neurotoxin affecting..." This presumably means the second of the two but the construction jars. Furthermore, if something is insect-specific, then it can't affect crustaceans! Should that first use of the word have been singular neurotoxin?? "These have been recovered..." All of them? Just the peptides? See my first issue with this para. Anyway, I would suggest that "small peptides that inhibit angiotensin-1-converting enzyme", whether wikilinked or not, is miles too technical to be in this article. I can't even guess at its significance. I would seriously consider deleting this whole para, but at least sort out the stuff about the two neurotoxins. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The venom is technical, but details of it is important to understand how the spider kills such a wide variety of creatures. Details of the toxin probably need to have better references and be better written, but to remove technical details of the venom would be abdicating from describing the spider properly. The redback spider's venom has some unique qualities. As far as I understand it the reback spider's venom is similar, but not identical to the black widow's venom. Snowman (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"angiotensin-1-converting enzyme" is extremely well known in human biology being part of the Renin–angiotensin system. This is basic biology - first-year at college stuff in the UK. I think that little bits of technical stuff can not be cut out, because little parts help to explain all of it. The nominators do not want to split of the bites section into any of the linked pages or a new page; I has assumed that this was a consensus, but this may need to be confirmed. Snowman (talk) 11:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon having an angiotensin-1-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor in the venom is pretty amazing and notable -the other toxins I have deliberated about, but I do lean to inclusion as it is educational about all the compounds that are in venoms such as these - I would not be unhappy to seeing them moved to the genus article though Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)If it really is that important, then I think what is needed is a longer explanation that allows a reader like me (who completed a university B.Sc., just not in biology) to have a clue as to why the information is included. I lean toward leaving it out, and if someone wants to create Redback spider venom, then this stuff could be set out more fully there. Also, you mention "details of it is important to understand how the spider kills such a wide variety of creatures", but all of this text is in a section of the article on "bites to humans". I suppose "venom" could become a standalone section, or part of the biology of the creature?... or not. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(@casliber) OK, well can you include something so the reader understands why it is so important or amazing that there are "small peptides that inhibit angiotensin-1-converting enzyme"? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the mention of compounds in the related species briefer, so that it illustrates how complex these venoms are yet minimises material not germane to this species and hopefully makes the prose easier to read. Need to chase a source for the medical significance of ACE inhibitors - hopefully there is one in the venom source, but very tired now and need to sleep. WIll do in AM. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean about organisation of the venom section. However, I think that details of the venom should stay on this page being an inseparable part of the biology of the spider. Perhaps, the clinical aspects are not so firmly fixed to this article. Perhaps, most or all of the current venom level 3 section could be moved to a level 2 heading higher up the page, but it would leave the "Bites to humans" section without any details of the relevant chemistry/biochemistry of the venom. There are some alternate ways to organise it, but a lot of level four headings might not be suitable. Organisation of information on the venom is a problem awaiting a logical solution. Snowman (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@casliber: this section is now better, but I's still like to know what to "inhibit angiotensin-1-converting enzyme" means in the real world. Why does the reader want to know about this particular molecular process? For example, could it read like "inhibit angiotensin-1-converting enzyme, dangerously lowering blood pressure", or something like that? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will just go and get paper and look to see what we can add - probably in a footnote. Will notify when done. Right, added two refs - one shows their role in envenomation and second just a note on ACE inhibitors. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with the footnote as a solution. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ACE inhibitor medication in humans is standard treatment for hypertension and has a number of side effects including causing a dry cough, which is likely to be due to the ACE inhibitor's effect on the Kinin–kallikrein system, a process that modulates inflammation. This aspect is and poorly understood. Also, how exactly the spider's venom causes the symptoms of envenomation is also poorly understood. I think that it is apt that all the venom's known ingredients are listed, even if some of them are rather mysterious. I think that the new line in the footnote is a good window into these poorly understood facets. Snowman (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ACE inhibitors may worsen pain of tissue inflammation according to this paper; see Fein A (2009). "ACE inhibitors worsen inflammatory pain". Medical Hypotheses. 72 (6): 757. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2009.01.012., which I found on the ACE inhibitor page. Snowman (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
incidental MOS issue: in one para we have α-latroinsectotoxin and in another we have alpha-latrotoxin - consistency in denoting Greek letters? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I expect it makes medical sense, but this lay reader was rather confused by being first told that the antivenom is produced through repeated inoculation of horses (ergo it doesn't kill them), but then later reading that horses are "very susceptible" to the venom. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point. I suspect that the horses are specially prepared for inoculations, perhaps starting with small doses, but I have no idea and I am only guessing. I expect that horses would eventually build up enough active immunity to become largely resistant to the toxic effects of spider venom. I think the article would need some more explanation from RS, but I have found it difficult to find out a lot. Snowman (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic ending! Love the info about the withheld spider stamp! hamiltonstone (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've only been through the lead and first few sections, looking mostly at prose since the nomination seems to have gotten a lot of attention to factual and other matters. I find the writing quite jarring and not up to the standards I'd expect to meet criterion 1a. It's not the style I'm used to from Cas so I suspect the prose has suffered from too many cooks in the kitchen. Some random pot-shots:
"lives in an untidy web in a warm sheltered location and preys on insects, spiders and lizards that it entraps in its web and kills by injecting a complex venom through its two fangs when it bites" That train wrecked about halfway into its route.
"It has a widespread distribution in Australia and inadvertent introductions have lead to established colonies in New Zealand, Japan and greenhouses in Belgium." The object of "It" is pretty muddy, since we've been reading about sperm and eggs and eggsacs for two sentences prior.
"which when severe typically includes pain lasting over 24 hours and progressing up a bitten limb, sweating, nausea and vomiting" I've read this three times and I still don't know what it's saying. A lot of work needed on proper phrasing and parallel structure.
"The spider is especially found in or around human dwellings" What is "especially" doing? Are you trying to say it's found there more than it's found elsewhere?
"The common name "redback" is derived from its distinctive red stripe along the dorsal aspect of its abdomen." Its, its
done --99of9 (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Starting in history... "these spiders", "these venomous spiders", etc.
Feels rough and cobbled together, with a lot of little awkward dances done to avoid restating the subject too many times. There are far more elegant ways of expressing all of the above items. --Laser brain(talk) 21:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the nominators have given reviewers a lot of work to do here, and I think that the article is still a work in progress. I am very grateful that a number of reviewers and editors have contributed various skills. I anticipate that the article will continue to improve bit by bit and I think that final phase of this FAC will include copy-editing. I would say that it is rather simplistic to say that "the prose has suffered from too many cooks in the kitchen". Snowman (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a natural process of fine-tuning the prose so that it is both flows well and is easy to read yet is faithful to the source material. I concede we were underprepared for the FAC yet I think the article has been vastly improved while here. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that there have been prose improvements. I was left with a lingering question, though. The "Antivenom" section describes the process of inoculating horses with the venom. I added a phrase about how this doesn't make the horse sick, after reading the source cited. In the "Bites to animals" section, though, you say horses are "very susceptible" which I verified with the provided source which is targeted toward veterinarians. These pieces of information seem at odds, although maybe I'm misunderstanding something. --Laser brain(talk) 15:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Over simplification: "... , a process that does not cause the horses to become ill." The horses lives are shortened from about 20 years to about 5 or 6 years. Snowman (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is your source for that information? It's not in the article cited. --Laser brain(talk) 18:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is some discussion in one of the sources - just have to remember where...but is not widely mentioned. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See BBC about another venom. I can not find other refs at the present time, but I recall seeing something similar for the redback spider. Snowman (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way to think of it is that the horses are not poisoned acutely, but there do appear to be long term health effects...It is dfinitely something that should be covered in the antivenom article.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 06:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed that horses do not become ill. I would agree that the source article probably meant "not acutely ill" and did not go into detail about the horses health over a period of years. Could the interpretation of "not acutely ill" be added back or not? Also, horses tolerate plamaphoresis well, but I can not find a secondary source for that either at the moment. Snowman (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have clarified it by saying "non-lethal doses". Snowman (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because this is the last of the Winsor McCay film articles I've been working on, in the hope of having them all promoted as FAs before February 2014, the 100th anniversary of Gertie the Dinosaur. This one is the film where things seemed to go inexplicably wrong—the earlier films were each more poular than the last. After 22 months of work on this one, the public was indifferent, as they were to McCay's later films. Pressure from William Randolph Hearst brought an end to these ventures, and that was it for the most important pre-Disney animator. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: All images are legitimately in the public domain, and all required information is present.
Spot checks: I checked the references 5, 8, 16, 30, 32, 33, 40. In every case I found the statement fully backed by the source, and I found no close paraphrasing issues (not even with peculiar phrasing like "vast voids which engorge themselves on the drowning bodies"). But shouldn't ref 5 refer to page 17, rather than 22?
When I searched through Google Books, I found the support for "His birth records are not extant" on page 17. I couldn't see page 22. It could be that page 22 is a better source; I can't tell. If you could check when you get a chance, I'd appreciate it. – Quadell(talk) 20:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the lead would flow better if the "A work of propaganda" clause were instead prepended to the "It is a recreation of the never-photographed 1915 sinking of the RMS Lusitania" sentence.
When a brief prepositional phrase begins a sentence (e.g. "In 1915"), it is an editorial choice whether to use a comma or not. But that choice should be reasonably consistent. In the 2nd paragraph of the lead, one sentence uses a comma after "In 1916", while a different sentence omits a comma after "In 1915". Most sentences in the article use a comma here, but "After 1921" in the "Reception and legacy" section does not.
Done. I don't have a strong preference for one style or the other, so I went with the majority. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "successes in animation" should be followed by a colon. Otherwise it sounds like this film followed his successes, and these three films as well (implying they were not successes).
The lead uses three semicolons; that's a lot. (Kurt Vonnegut would not approve.) Consider the first sentences of paragraph 3 of the "Background" section, and compare them to the first sentence of paragraph 2 of the lead, and I think you'll see it works fine without a semi-colon.
I've always preferred John Barth's writing to Vonnegut's; Barth loves his semicolon-twinned sentences. Not that I would claim to have mastered them, and I generally don't revert when someone adds or removes them from the articles on my watchlist. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not read Barth, but he sounds fascinating! I did remove one semicolon. – Quadell(talk) 20:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, was in 1,200 or 1,198? I don't remember...
The first sentence of "Synopsis" needs rewording. One duplication is "...opens with a live-action prologue, with intertitles". Another is "that boasts of McCay... and boasts of 25,000 drawings". Also, it's not clear if the last "boasts" is a noun (if so, how does it fit in the sentence?) or a verb (if so, what is the subject?)
The lifespan format of "(c. 1867–71 – 1934)" is confusing. I see that most McCay-related articles use the same multiple-en-dash format, though the FA How a Mosquito Operates does not. I don't like it at all, personally.
Oh it's terrible. It's not strictly against the MoS, and I won't hold up the nomination on this point, but I'd be very grateful if someone with more MoS-knowledge than me could provide a better solution at some point. – Quadell(talk)
The phrase "Hearst editor Arthur Brisbane" sounds odd, since Brisbane didn't edit Hearst.
The term "registration pegs" is not in common use, and it isn't explained when it is first mentioned. It's explained (kind of) further down, although I don't think the link to Printing registration is useful. (That article is about color printing.)
A very effective rewording. – Quadell(talk) 20:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "from artist neighbor John Fitzsimmons" sounds odd. Would this work? "...from his neighbor, artist John Fitzsimmons, and from Cincinnati cartoonist..."
With that, we run into ambiguity over whether it was two or three people who helped. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, serial comma ambiguity, my old friend. I added a "from", which I think makes it clearer (although if anyone has a better wording suggestion, go for it). – Quadell(talk) 20:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"McCay did newspaper illustrations" sounds odd. Do people "do" illustrations?
I'm pretty sure they do; nevertheless, I've changed it to "provided". Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consider "This saved great amounts of effort in contrast to McCay's earlier efforts..." To avoid duplication, I think "earlier methods" would work better.
It's the way I've always spelt it; apparently it's also acceptable American spelling. I wouldn't make a fuss if someone went and changed it, though. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, just curious. – Quadell(talk) 20:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the fact about Cristiani's lost work would go best in the "Notes" section.
Duplication: In the "Reception and legacy" section, you say the film is "often called the longest animated film of its time", and then go on to say it was noted "as the longest animated film to date".
It's not clear what you mean by "Unexecuted animation projects". Were they ideas that never got started? Or films that never got released?
They were projects that for one reason or another never got to the animation stage, as far as is known. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, okay. I've boldly reworded, not as part of a FA requirement, but just because I thought I could word it better. Feel free to revert. – Quadell(talk) 20:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The list in the "See also" section does not seem particularly relevant to me.
The article is thorough, interesting, well organized, and appropriately sourced. The main problems involve copy-editing concerns. – Quadell(talk) 16:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are great. I'll look them over more thoroughly later this weekend. Meanwhile, don't forget about the sourcing question I had in "spotchecks". – Quadell(talk) 12:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I believe this passes all our FA criteria. I'd be more comfortable if source 5 were doublechecked, but the nominator has high integrity when it comes to sources, and I won't hold up supporting on that point. – Quadell(talk) 20:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I can't access the Google Books copy (I'm in Japan, and many of the books on Google Books are blocked here). In my copy, there is no text on page 17, only a couple of photos. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books definitely has the bit about his birth records' destruction on page 17, not 22. But I suspect Google may have digitized the original edition, not the revised edition Curly Turkey is working from. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"McCay himself adopted the cel method beginning with The Sinking of the Lusitania.", "It was the first film in which he drew on sheets of clear cellulose acetate": repetition
"American Earl Hurd's cel technology", "Earl Hurd had patented cel technology": repetition
"it saved work by allowing dynamic drawings to be drawn on one or more layers, which could be laid over a static background layer, relieving animators of the tedium of retracing static images onto drawing after drawing. The cels were an added expense, but the technique allowed for a static background to be placed behind the cels, which reduced the amount of drawing necessary. This saved great amounts of effort in contrast to McCay's earlier methods, in which the backgrounds had to be painstakingly retraced onto each of thousands of drawings.": lots of repetition
Done. I've done some cutting, mixing, and rearranging, and I think I've blotted out all the reptitions. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It was not until Disney's feature films in the 1930s that the animation industry caught up with McCay's level of technique.": "level of technique" is vague. And, depending on what this is saying, this might be a bold enough statement to require attribution.
Oppose for now Moving to neutral with most of my concerns addressed, though I'm not comfortable supporting without one final read-through. Will try to do so in the next couple of days. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 08:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Use circa for Winsor McCay once in the body of the article. It's not needed for the lead, I think. Furthermore, using "(c. 1867–71 – 1934)" is ungainly. Using c. should allow you to use just 1867.
I'm not really a fan of where you've placed the movie itself. It breaks of the synopsis into a couple of short, choppy segments. Can we put that at the top of or maybe even above the "synopsis" section? (if above, you can use the magic word __FORCETOC__)
I've moved it to the top of the section. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant: "On Gertie the Dinosaur an assistant painstakingly traced and retraced the backgrounds thousands of times." -> "This saved great amounts of effort in contrast to McCay's earlier methods, in which the backgrounds had to be painstakingly retraced onto each of thousands of drawings."
I'm confused at your organization here. You come at the reader with some cel history, talk about time/collaborators, come back at them with "and spent his off hours drawing the film on sheets of cellulose acetate (or "cels") with white and black India ink at McCay's home." before telling them that he financed it himself. You then go back to cel technology. What's going on here? Maybe we can keep related items together?
Quadell asked the same question above. If someone took it out, I wouldn't revert, but I'm not inclined to remove it myself. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's an acceptable alternate spelling. – Quadell(talk) 11:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"... although there is an animated film from Britain on the same subject that may have preceded it." What name? Readers may want to look it up.
The source doesn't name it, and doesn't name a source. I've moved this tidbit to an endnote. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Silly me—it was named in one of the sources I was already using. Now named. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is $80,000 not a commercial success? $80,000 in 1918 was a lot of money. Given that it was over several years, I can see it being relatively neutral, but it's hard to believe that it was a flop.
I'm not going to guess—this is what Canemaker says: "[McCay] had financed all of his films himself, mostly at a loss. Lusitania was to be no exception; it netted McCay only $80,000 after a number of years in theaters, approximately $3.20 per drawing." I don't know what the threshold for box office success was in 1918, but a film today can haul in tens of millions and still be a flop (no that the article calls it a flop, just not a commercial success). Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overall not terrible, but it needs some attention to detail IMHO. Please feel free to dispute any points I've made above—I'm not immune to sound logical reasoning. :-) Thanks and best of luck, Ed[talk][majestic titan] 19:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I notice you've moved the {efn}s outside the {sfn}s. In a previous review, I was told the notes were supposed to be inside the citations, and have been formatting them so ever since. Is there a guideline on this somewhere? Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's just silly (no offense intended, of course)—the endnotes cover the sentences, while the extended footnotes have references for themselves. To reverse them makes it look like the endnotes are references for the footnotes too. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 08:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The references do reference (identify the sources for) the notes... – Quadell(talk) 13:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Inside the footnotes, yes. But I wouldn't put footnotes after endnotes (i.e. [a][1] is bad) because it looks like the endnote ([1]) covers the footnote ([a]) as well. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 20:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I see what you mean. Yes, I agree. – Quadell(talk) 21:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I used to place them outside, basically following ed's logic, until I was told they should be inside. I don't feel strongly one way or the other, but it'd hate to see them shifted back and forth by editors with different preferences, so it would be nice if there were a guideline. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've got very little to complain about here; you do great work with these McCay articles. But I do see a possible contradiction. This article says "McCay made a further five more films, three of which did not see commercial release." But Winsor McCay lists Bug Vaudeville, The Pet, The Flying House, The Centaurs, Gertie on Tour, Flip's Circus, and Performing Animals. Is this a difference in what counts as a "film"? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. That was sloppy of me. And to think I once excelled in math. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Production history, you refer to Fitzsimmons by his last name only before you introduce him as an artist and McCay's neighbor.
Probably a result of moving sections around. Fixed. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You probably don't need to call him John the second time now, though. /nitpick. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does Fitzsimmons warrant a redlink? A quick pass over the sources leaves me undecided.
I have no idea what he's done apart from the films with McCay—the only places I've seen his name are in relation to McCay. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further examination, I don't see anything independent of McCay either. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about Ap Adams? I'm having trouble finding much on him, in part because there's this William Apthorp Adams (who I'd assume is related), whose death date makes him a clearly different person.
I know less about him than Fitsimmons—I've only seen his name in the Canemaker book. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the other William Apthorp Adams might be notable, but he's not this guy. So, yeah, no redlink needed here, I don't believe. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd consider giving Jewel Productions a redlink. The state of our articles on silent era production studios is not good, but there's material out there for this one.
Might also be worth including that Jewel Productions' acquisition of rights to the film was believed by Motography to be the highest price paid for a one-reel film as of that date. ("Pays Big Price for One-Reeler". Motography. 20 (2): 74. 1918-07-13.)
Wow, thanks a lot for that! If you come across any more McCay mentions in these magazines, please let me know—I'd love to include them in the other articles, especially the Dream of the Rarebit Fiend one (I'm inthe dark as to what kind of reception they had). Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad this was valuable. I'll see what I can find for the rest of the McCay films over the next few days. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Style opens with "Combining editorial cartooning techniques with live-action-like sequences...", and I'm confused. I know the introduction was actually live-action. Is that what's being referred to here? What was "live-action-like"?
It's supposed to refer to the style of animation. I think I've clarified it now. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what I think is the last thing to note: Other than that Motography source I mentioned above, the other period film magazines don't appear to say anything that's not being said by other sources already (if they even covered it at all). However, Jewel Productions did take out this pretty impressive full-page ad in The Moving Picture World. Not sure there's really anywhere in the article to mention that, much less include it, but thought you'd like to see it!
Wow! If it were McCay's own artwork, I'd probably try to force it into the article somehow. I'll probably still upload it to Commons. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of the comments I've made above are significant enough to warrant objecting to promotion, especially way down here at the bottom of the FAC list. I'm happy to support promotion regardless of the status of my few quibbles. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...floating bodies, including those of a mother and her baby.' Watching the film, the mother and baby are depicted drowning, not dead, with the mother desperately trying to hold her baby above the waves as she sinks.
I've changed bodies to "drowning passengers", although I'm sure there's a better wording ... Curly Turkey (gobble)
I think you need to separate out the description of the two scenes. The long panoramic shot of the people in the water is a long shot; they may be supposed to be dead, or maybe not, it is hard to tell. The scene with the mother and baby is close in and much more intimate and they are definitely not dead, at least at first. It is a scene saying something very different to the shot of anonymous people in the water. SpinningSpark 00:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, it is still lumping them together as if it were the same scene. The first scene is panoramic, the second is not. Also, the camera does not "pan over" in either shot; I am not sure that panning is done anywhere in the film. SpinningSpark 09:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)/18:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my view the scene of the drowning mother and child should be treated in a separate sentence. It is the closing scene of the film and is clearly intended to make a strong emotional impact before the political message on the final intertitle. It is thus an important part of the film by itself. SpinningSpark 11:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is it now?
A mother struggles to save her baby[4] as the Lusitania vanishes from sight. Are we watching the same movie? The mother and baby scene is an underwater shot and the Lusitania isn't in it. It sunk about three scenes back. SpinningSpark 21:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is embarrassing. I think my intention originally was just to give an impression of the various scenes that close the film rather than a play-by-play. I think I've finally got it now. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The transcription of the intertitle is not quite accurate. I also think that the punctuation (!) and all caps should be preserved as this conveys some of the emotive content of the intertitle. My reading of it is "The man who fired the shot was decorated for it by the Kaiser!—AND YET THEY TELL US NOT TO HATE THE HUN." True MOS:QUOTE calls for all caps not to be preserved in quotes but I feel in this case they are part of the visual impact of the intertitle so is a valid exception. In any case, if MOS:QUOTE is to be followed all caps should be converted to bold or italics. MOS:QUOTE also pronounces against the use of wikilinks within quotes.
The text still does not exactly agree with the intertitle. Note the singular "shot" and the words "for it". I can't think of any reason why you are omitting the questionexclamation mark either. SpinningSpark 00:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the exclamation mark? SpinningSpark 09:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hain't my day, ist it, Mr Spark? Fixed, finally, I hope. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Background
I feel a brief word on why Germany was torpedoing civilian ships would be beneficial. Both for balance and to answer readers' curiosity. Is there an article that could be linked?
I was really looking for something in running text. See also is often used to link to subjects that in a fully developed article would be discussed in the article, but an FA should be fully developed. It is unbalanced to discuss American reactions and not discuss German motivations. Come to think of it, Britain is not mentioned either, not even to say it was their ship. SpinningSpark 00:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can throw together a quick line or two. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of rendering caused the cels to buckle, which made it difficult for the camera to shoot them. I presume what is meant here is that the buckled cel is not properly aligned and/or is out of focus with respect to the rest of the cels. The camera is going to have no difficulty taking a shot of this, it will just be a lousy shot. What is the relevance of the thickness of the cels which is mentioned immediately prior to this problem. Does it make the buckling worse or better, or is it a totally unrelated issue?
I'm fairly certain the buckling wasn't due to the thickness per se, but to the amount of ink, pencil, and wash that was put onto it. I don't know how thicknes allows this (I've never seen these thicker cels firsthand), but I can't imagine using pencil on modern cels (imagine trying to write with pencil on an overhead sheet). Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that there is a slight implication in the present text that the cel thickness has something to do with the buckling. If that is not true, or we don't know whether it is true, then the clarity of the article needs to be fixed. SpinningSpark 00:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Canemaker says the thick cels had a "tooth" to allow pencil and wash. The meaning of tooth is explained in The Animation Bible (a further snippet here [14]. SpinningSpark 01:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find an article that gives a definition of "tooth" (I'd've thought paper would—it's hardly an obscure subject). I'm not too happy with this wording, and am wide open to alternate suggestions. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
developed a technique using a loose-leaf binder with a hole punched in the middle. Completely fail to understand how that is supposed to help. The link to the ring binder article is of no help.
The source isn't clear, but the impression I got was that he was using the binder as a light table—I think the hole was supposed to be quite large, but the source doesn't explicitly state that. Cel technology allows for the layering of transparent cels, so it's important to be able to see through one to the other—when photographing as well. I assume the binding kept the layered cels align. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, registration pegs were used to keep cels aligned. I have no idea what role the binder played in photography. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bang on about this one. I am an engineer and like to understand the technical details and am unhappy leaving this unclear. It kind of sounds like the binder formed sort of frame to hold the deformed cels flat. It would be nice to clarify this. SpinningSpark 00:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have read what Canemaker has to say, that seems to be exactly the right description and "a hole punched in the middle" is a poor one. The centre of the binder is cut away leaving just an outline frame to clamp the cels. Just punching a hole, even a large one, would have left some of the drawing obscured. SpinningSpark 01:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How does it look now? I think I've got a better mental image of it now from your interpretation that I'd had from Canemaker's. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Punched" is a poor choice of word. It evokes a specific process, which may well not have been used, and is one that is typically used for small holes. Keep them aligned is also poor, as you said youself above, alignment is the job of the registration pegs, this device is to flatten out the buckling. The essential point that is not coming across is that they ended up with a frame that held down the edges of the cels thus tending to flatten out the warping. SpinningSpark 09:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is this? Honestly, the more I read that paragraph in the book, the less confident I am that I understand what it means. Where it seems at first like he's describing the binder, it seems to turn out that he's describing the registration pegs?— "The heavily rendered Lusitania cels tended to buckle, and so Fitzsimmons suggested using a loose-leaf binder with the centre cut out to hold the drawings while filming them. "I mentioned this to Mr. Mac," said Fitsimmons, "and he agreed that the idea held great possibilities and the plan was immediately taken advantage of. Binding posts were attached to drawing boards and the sheets of celluloid were punched to snugly fit to them. Thus the annoying problem of movement or shifting of drawings while being traced was reduced to a minimum .... [it] also facilitated the photographing of the drawings immeasurably and proved well-worth all additional expense." Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not happy that this is not being explained properly. It does not seem to be unknown; the information is out there, we are just not finding it. If we really do not understand this it would be better to directly quote the source rather than trying to paraphrase which would all too likely just further garble the information. Cutting out the centre of the binder could be read as cutting out the ring-binding mechanism on the spine. In which case any talk of punching holes in the binder is definitely wrong. If Canemaker's binding posts are read as being this mechanism then it all starts to make sense. It is also not clear if this is being used as well as, instead of, or as a development of, the registration peg system. SpinningSpark 18:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, less than ideal, ow about something like: "The amount of rendering caused the cels to buckle, which made it difficult to keep them aligned for photographing; assistant John Fitzsimmons dealt with it using a modified loose-leaf binder.": then we would be stating what we don't know (how it was modified or how it was used). If we ever do find out, we can add it then. I'm not sure the "binding posts" have anything to do with the binder—since they were "attached to drawing tables", they sound to me like registration pegs, which had been patented before McCay started making the film. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Smith 1977 (page 24) says: "Raoul Barré, who in 1913 established the first studio capable of producing animated cartoons in quantity, is credited with developing registration pegs and punch holes in the drawings to hold them in place. John Fitzimmons remembers also coming up with the idea of registration pegs and punched holes in the drawings while helping McCay make The Sinking of the Lusitania." I guess it looks like McCay didn't use Barré's registration pegs after all (though it seems unlikely to me, given that Bray had tried to sue him over patent issues in 1914, and that the pegs had been around for three years already by the time McCay started Lusitania). The current wording at least doesn't contradict this. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess your suggestion will have to do. Regarding "attached to drawing tables" that is exactly what I am suggesting Fitzsimmons did with the mechanism. Many large ring binders have a releasable clamp to hold the pages down. That is just what they needed to stop the cels curling up, especially if they fitted two of these on opposite sides. This is something that simple registration pegs would not do as they are open at the top. The Smith quote seems to back up this interpretation, that this was McCay's version of registration pegs. I would have thought that if they had previously been in patent disputes that they might have patented this system. I couldn't find a patent, but I might just not be using the right search terms. SpinningSpark 11:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
McCay apparently was not interested in the idea of patenting his innovations. Canemaker quotes him saying, "Any idiot that wants to make a couple of thousand drawings for a hundred feet of film is welcome to join the club." Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has made it clear that we do not understand for sure what the technique was. I am still not happy with the text of the article on this. It currently reads using a loose-leaf binder with the center cut out to frame the cels but if my suggested interpretation above is correct then using the cut-out center of a loose-leaf binder to clamp the cels would be more accurate. We either need to find out for sure how it worked or, if we cannot do that, quote the source verbatim. SpinningSpark 23:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about the "modified binder" wording I proposed above? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's sufficiently vague. It would, of course, be better not to be vague at all. SpinningSpark 12:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be nice if decent records were kept. As it is, even the original drawings for most of the films haven't survived. Anyways, Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
900 feet of 35 mm film has 14,400 frames. Drawings != frames in cel animation. Each cel is a separate drawing and more than one cel may be created for an individual frame. 25,000 drawings does not seem like an anomaly to me, unless the sources indicate that frames are meant.
It wasn't me who claimed the anomaly, but the source—and neither the endnote nor the source claim that there was actually an error.
Cels allow layering to reduce the number of drawings. For instance, a single background drawing can be used for hundreds or thousands of foreground drawings. It's unlikely that 10,600 of the drawings were background drawings. In animation since McCay there are often several layers of foreground cels, but I don't see any evidence of that in the film.
Lusitania is not the only film that it's been claimed McCay inflated numbers—check out endnote "o" of Gertie the Dinosaur, a film where one rice-paper drawing did equal one frame. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with this now, but cels allow layering to reduce the number of drawings is an incorrect statement. Cels reduce the amount of drawing to be sure, but the number of drawings can only increase. SpinningSpark 09:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
Though admired by his animation contemporaries, it was technically ahead of its time. The contrasting conjunction though is expected to lead to a negative contrast but it does not.
it was technically ahead of its time[40] and "did not revolutionize the [animation] medium". Connected with the above issue, technically ahead of its time would be expected to lead to a positive outcome but a negative one is given so the positive conjunction and seems inappropriate, a negative one such as but seems to be needed.
Outside comment: This same wording came up before in a previous (successful) nomination. The animation was "ahead of its time" in a negative way. I'm so used to hearing this as a compliment, that I sometimes forget it's really not: McCay's animation might have been popular and remunerative ten years later, but when it was released it was not a success. I can't think of a better way to succinctly say that than to say it was "ahead of its time". If seen as a negative, it makes the contrasting conjunction issues go away. – Quadell(talk) 19:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though could be replaced on that sentence, it makes sense there. @Quadell:, just because a sentence is grammatically and semantically correct does not necessarily mean that it is a good sentence. If it is likely to be misunderstood, which ahead of its time will in this context, then it is bad on the grounds of clarity. The more I think about this, the more that sentence does not seem to actually be saying anything meaningful (neither the old one or the new one). When one talks about "ahead of its time" in Quadell's negative sense one usually means an idea that it is not possible to implement succesfully because the technology for it has not yet developed. Icarus' idea of human powered flight was ahead of its time because the technology of the day was not up to it. McCay's animation on the other hand was clearly technically feasible because he actually did it. Thus "technically too advanced for his peers to follow" cannot be right (unless they were particularly technically incompetent). They could have followed him, they just did not want to. But why? SpinningSpark 18:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By "replace", do you "put back in"?
how about "beyond the technical abilities of his peers"? Which I do think is true—I can't think of an animator from the time who could have matched McCay merely by sheer dint of effort. We're talking every aspect here, from McCay's rendering and composition skills to his sense of movement, timing, and weight. The Brays and Fleischers simply weren't anywhere near his level in terms of basic drawing skills, and McCay's understanding went well beyond mere drawing ability. Remember, McCay was doing these cartoons in his free time (and a lot of his free time was eaten up by the vaudeville act he also did on the side), while his rivals did it nine-to-five. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"put back in", yes, that's exactly what I meant. So you seem to be saying that McCay's drawing quality was technically too advanced for his peers to follow rather than the animation method was technically too advanced. If so, can that be clarified in-article please. SpinningSpark 11:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "McCay's skills were beyond what his contemporaries were able follow". Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Style
Please explain, link, or gloss the term alternating shots.
SpinningSpark 19:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC) to 18:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Layout
The Sinking of the Lusitania (1918)
Making the link to the film file so large is a bit ugly and there is no need to centre it. In both Firefox and IE the film pops out into a larger format when you actually play it. Is there some problem with other browsers?SpinningSpark 15:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just wanted to emphasize the artwork—it blurred into a goop of grey when it was standard size. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On a standard thumbnail I can see the outline of the ship and the statue of liberty quite clearly. I don't think this is really good for an FA, the file is mostly functional to kick off the movie. It's not as if you are actually discussing the artwork in that section when the artwork would have some relevance. If you just want an art gallery you could add a picture gallery at the bottom of the article. SpinningSpark 00:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd intended to have one blown-up image like that in any case—if it can be accomplished with one image rather than two, I see that as big bonus points. The smaller version is obscured by the "play" button, and you really can't clearly see anything unless you know what you're looking for—you certainly aren't given a feel for the level of detail, which is what is being highlighted, not the existence of the ship or the Statue of Liberty. I could blow up some image instead and shrink this one back, but I considered it a bonus that the video image was less obscured by the "play" button when blown up. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can now support promotion of this article. I still have one issue, but it is not serious enough to prevent my support. I think managed may be a poor choice of word to describe Fitzsimmons' innovation; it could easily be misunderstood. I suggest a substitution something like managed this > addressed this problem. SpinningSpark 16:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I've made the suggested wording change as well. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to recuse myself from delegate duties on this one; I copyedited for prose and spotchecked a source, and have one recommendation re. presentation (see below):
I found a fair few things in the lead that looked like they could stand some work and copyedited accordingly: aside from tweaks to the expression, McCay's life dates didn't seem necessary there as they could be found in the main body, and World War I is really too broad and (I hope!) well-known a subject to benefit much from being linked as it was, so I substituted it with a link to American entry into World War I. I also copyedited the Background section, among other things removing a dup link for Little Nemo and again substituting the World War I link for something more meaningful.
Okay, cool. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit concerned that "fluid and naturalistic" sounded like close paraphrasing but having spotchecked all six elements cited to that source (Bottomore), I'm satisfied that everything was reported accurately with only a word or two borrowed ("dark", referring to the mood of the film, and "fluid" referring to the animation, and I can't think of useful alternates for those myself).
Now, presentation-wise, I get where you're coming from re. the film file, Curly, but I agree with Spinningspark here. I find its size and central position -- producing stacks of surrounding whitespace -- quite off-putting and suggest either reducing and moving it per his suggestion or simply putting it (sans image) in External Links. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File resized and moved. Grudgingly, mind you. Grrrrundgingly. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood and thanks. One thing though, now I see it moved to the right, on my 14-in 1366x768 screen it does shove the other images on the right down a fair bit, and wonder if it wouldn't be better to place it on the left (even if that puts it directly under the Synopsis section header -- from memory there's no hard-and-fast rule against that). Happy to hear how it looks to others of course... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to ditch the image of McCay instead to free up some space. He appears in the video, anyways. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that when I look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winsor_McCay#Filmography it shows that Gertie the Dinosaur is longer than Lousitania. The Gertie the Dinosaur page also says it's an animated short film just like Lusitania. That seems to contradict "The longest animated film at the time of its release, at twelve minutes" written in Lusitania's first paragraph. Also, Gertie's page lists its Running time to the second whereas Lusitania's rounds it to the nearest minute which makes it more difficult to check this claim. Vctrbarbieri 22:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lusitania is a longer work of animation. The Gertie film includes a much, much longer live-action prologue—the animation doesn't start until over 9 minutes into the film, and comes to roughly four minutes. Originally Gertie was only the animated bits, with no prologue and no intertitles—that version no longer survives, so a running time for it cannot be given.
The Winsor McCay page is a work in progress. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that Lusitania says it's "The longest animated film" instead of saying it's the longest work of animation. It seems really problematic when the original Gertie film is longer by 12 seconds and the first sentence on its article says it's an animated film. Vctrbarbieri 00:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the Reception and legacy subheading is now written "and is often called the work of animation of its time". Also, the running time might as well be listed at 12:07 in the infobox for consistency with how Gertie's article has its running time written as 12:18 Vctrbarbieri 00:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think I'd rather round Gertie, as (a) Nathan & Crafton have made it clear that the version that survives is not complete (at least a few seconds are known to be missing); and (b) the version in the video is not the original, which hasn't survived. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing the running times deleted from the infoboxes entirely, but I fear to tread there ... I've had bad experiences removing parameters from infoboxes. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I find infoboxes counterproductive for just this kind of reason. They require black and white statements and it is impossible to explain subtleties that are better done in the prose. When I write articles I rarely use infoboxes and anyone who tries to put one in gets reverted first and asked questions afterwards. But I wouldn't recommend going down that road, it can lead to a lot of conflict. SpinningSpark 02:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen far more than my share of the hostilities on both sides—it sometimes seems safer to discuss abortion. I'm pro-infobox, but believe they should be confined to those statements that can be safely made in black-and-white terms, and should be generally applicable to the entire subject of the article (my beef there is with the WikiProject Novels crowd, who insist that {{Infobox book}} must be applied to the first edition of a book—including out-of-date ISBNs and publishers).
Gosh, I just found myself about to write an essay on Infoboxes. CUTCUTCUT! Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a footnote be added to "The longest work of animation at the time of its release" to explain why Lusitania is not the Longest animated film but instead the longest work of animation. It would clear that up. Vctrbarbieri 23:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Outside opinion: That sounds like an excellent suggestion. It's the sort of distinction that would be best in a footnote. – Quadell(talk) 00:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Argentine animator Quirino Cristiani mentioned in Footnote E? 03:29, 22 Nov 2013
Re-read that footnote many times before I realised my stupidity. Now I'd like to copy edit it soon and see what you think about it Vctrbarbieri 04:10, 22 November 2013
If Quirino Cristiani's 70 minute animated film El Apostal exists, the statement "The longest work of animation at the time of its release" isn't true. If its existence can't currently be proved or disproved, then the word 'allegedly' needs to be added to the beginning of that statement. Vctrbarbieri 16:43, 22 November 2013
oh dear, "it was also the first animated documentary" can't be said either because there's footnote F which means we also can't be certain of that. Also, saying "at 12 minutes" is redundant when it's also put in the infobox for the running time. In fact, the first paragraph now seems like a factual disaster.Vctrbarbieri 17:01, 22 November 2013
I have made a copy-edit of the footnote; I hope it's now acceptable. It's fine for information in the lead to be repeated in the infobox, so it's not a redundancy problem (although the paragraph might flow more smoothly if "at twelve minutes" were removed from the lead). Also, I don't think "factual disaster" is fair at all. Lusitania is the first animated documentary that we can be sure existed, and it's certainly the earliest that exists now. Perhaps adding a "known to exist" or something would be an improvement? – Quadell(talk) 18:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"possibly" would be a better term and would have to apply to the 3 big claims of longest work of animation, 1st animated documentary and 1st serious dramatic work of animation. That's since El Apostal and Crashing through to Berlin probably exist Vctrbarbieri 22:17, November 2013 (UTC)
How about "earliest surviving"? I wouldn't drop the "12 minutes" from the lead—there are earlier sources (by writers who obviously hadn't seen the film) who described it as "feature length", and by calling it the longest I think readers would just assume it was a full-length hour-plus film (if the claims about Cristiani are true, then it certainly wasn't an impossibility). Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Near perfect though I'd have "is often called" replaced with "was possibly" because the present tense of "is" for the past action that was its release doesn't fit well and "possibly" would make "At twelve minutes" read less awkwardly. That or scrap "At twelve minutes". Vctrbarbieri 00:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, though I've just noticed a lot of double spaces after some full stops throughout the article. Is this deliberate? If so it is inconsistently applied. Vctrbarbieri 01:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you click through to my userpage you'll see I'm a double-space dogmatist. The only place I see in the article where this isn't applied is in the footnote about running times, which was a result of an edit of the nefarious Quadell. I believe the guidelines say somewhere that we're supposed to avoid adding or removing insignificant whitespaces just for the sake of adding or removing them, so I'll be keeping my OCD in check over this horrendous breach. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have a problem with the rewording of the footnote. The video file we've provided of Gertie is "several seconds longer" than video file we've provided of Lusitania. It's now known with certainty that Gertie is missing at the very least a few seconds; Lusitania is not nearly as well preserved as Gertie, and I wouldn't be surprised if whole hunks of it were missing. The entire live action prologue to How a Mosquito Operates is missing, and other of McCay's films have survived only in fragments. I'd prefer not to get too precise with running times, as it's clear they are not reliable—even "several seconds longer" is far too precise, I think. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the IMDB articles for Lusitania and Crashing through to Berlin. The latter is shown as released one month later on August 18th 1918. Just wondering if it's reliable enough to write that the former is definitely the 1st animated documentary and 1st serious dramatic work of animation Vctrbarbieri 00:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)IMDB entries are user-generated, aren't they? I have to wonder where they got that date. Here's a source that says "On August 11, 1918, Carl Laemmle screened the film in New York for the U.S. Committee on Public Information, which approved its release with a few deletions.", so it seems plausible, but it doesn't give the release date, and also says, "This film was compiled from footage originally released through Universal's weekly Screen Magazine and Current Events, a series of animated and newsreel shorts." So was it made up of previously-released material? The animation was supposed to be British, so what did the U.S. Committee on Public Information have to do with it? Sounds to me like there's a highly likelitude that the animation was released earlier—it also makes me think that I should drop the title Crashing Through to Berlin, as it wasn't the name of the animation but the film in which it was included. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it turns out that Universal Film Manufacturing Company distributed some films as Jewel Productions (inc.), Universal Jewel and under other names according to IMDB. It even lists them for Lusitania. Universal Film Manufacturing Company (as Jewel Productions) is what I recommend to be listed in the infobox now with a link to the Universal Studios article for now. 00:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I guess that explains why it was released as part of a Universal newsreel and why it was promoted by a Universal magazine. Hopefully somebody will create the page (or redirect) for Jewel. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found a "source" that clears up that Jewel was an independent company until it was consolidated with Universal in June 1919 and became a brand name for it. Vctrbarbieri 17:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On Reception and legacy the 3rd sentence is awfully long with 7 commas and 1 semicolon. Also, the 2nd last sentence has square brackets. Vctrbarbieri 17:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what mathematics have to do with the brackets "[t]he most significant cinematic version of the [Lusitania] disaster". Besides that I think Lusitania now reads like a Featured Article and is ready Vctrbarbieri 23:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you would, if you could read minds. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So "[t]" and "[Lusitania]" are bracketed since they're entries into the text that were not written/said by the original author? I'm not sure many people would understand that, though it could be just me. Either way, I now Support this article being Featured. Congratulations on the work. Vctrbarbieri 01:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. Yes, the square brackets are a well-established convention. I'm sure plenty of people aren't familiar with it, but I'm not aware of any better-established convention. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
In the late 17th century while Europe was undergoing a scientific revolution, deep in the forests of Central America the last independent Maya kingdoms were still practising human sacrifice upon pyramid temples, as their ancestors had done for many hundreds of years. They had been aware of the encroaching Spanish Empire since 1525, when Hernán Cortés had made an epic journey across their territory. Initial Spanish attempts against them had met with disaster in the early 1620s and the independent Maya, led by the warlike Itza, resolutely resisted Spanish overtures. The Spanish themselves were engaged in a complicated competition to be the first to bring the Itza within the Empire, with competing military expeditions from mutually independent colonial authorities in Yucatán and Guatemala, vying with attempts at religious conversion by both the Dominican and Franciscan Orders. With the Itza alternating between diplomatic overtures and the ambushing of Spanish expeditions, soldiers and friars alike fell beneath the spears and sacrificial knives of the Maya, although the outcome was perhaps inevitable…
SupportLeaning support. A remarkably well-written and -researched article. The only expertise I have on the subject is what I've gained from reading the article, but it at least gives the impression of being thoroughly comprehensive.
"on the west by the Mexican state of Chiapas with the border largely following the course of the Usumacinta River": I can't say I totally understand why it's an issue, but you may want to read WP:PLUSING.
I've rephrased it - I hope the rephrasing isn't more clumsy than using -ing! Simon Burchell (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"A single soldier arriving in Mexico in 1520 was carrying smallpox and thus initiated the devastating plagues that swept through the native populations of the Americas.": would this not be better in the "Impact of Old World diseases" section that follows?
"three 1-pound (0.45 kg) caliber light cannons": I don't know which brand of Commonwealth spelling this is written in, but I assume this should be "calibre".
"dark wood of a flowering tree, (Apoplanesia paniculata), called chulul by the Maya": I'm not sure the commas are necessary around the parantheses—at least, they look weird to me.
"The bows used by the Maya were almost as high as a man": would "were described as almost as high as a man" be more accurate?
I'll check my sources - it may be that some weaponry was collected and survived. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the text as suggested. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"a short jacket that was filled with rock salt": could we get a reason why?
The implication is that it is the shock absorbing quality of rock salt, something like with sandbags. I'll see if I can dig out something explicit but I rather doubt it - this is one of those things that is covered in passing in the sources but not covered in any detail. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the second paragraph of "Legacy of the conquest", San José is mentioned twice, and linked the second time. If they are the same San José, then the first one should be linked.
I must have delinked the wrong one with AWB. I've moved it to the first instance. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff to think about, but won't affect whether the article passes FAC[edit]
If you disagree with any of the following, just ignore it.
Would "Historical sources" not be better towards the end of the article? It doesn't seem to me like one of the first things a reader would want to read about.
A reviewer mentioned the same for the A-Class review over at MilHist; I don't have strong feelings about it, so will move it. The main reason I kept it near the beginning was to keep the format similar to Spanish conquest of Guatemala article. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For redlinks that have articles in other languages, you can use {{ill}}, so that for example you can do {{ill|es|Diego de Cardenas|Diego de Cárdenas (gobernador de Yucatán)}}, which produces Diego de Cardenas [es]—the great thing is, when someone creates the English-language article, the interwiki link disappears automagically.
Hmm. I like the idea but I don't like the (es) interrupting the reading flow - the average reader wouldn't have a clue what it meant. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been told that the "|indent=yes" with {{Refbegin}} does funny things with some browsers. If you switched to the asterisk style you'd marginally improve accessibility.
I like the indent because it allows the first line of the ref, with author etc. to stand out, making it easier to find a particular reference quickly. It seems to display OK in IE, Firefox and Chrome, and doesn't look too bad on my painfully slow early version Kindle. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the review - I hope I can work through the points you raised reasonably quickly. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everything I noted has been dealt with. An impressive level of quality, especially on such a long article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment will read through and jot queries below - have limited familiarity but did visit Tikal 20 years ago....cheers,Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Casliber, I look forward to your comments - Tikal is certainly a wonderful place to visit! It is somewhat peripheral to the events here - but I should think you went to Flores - one-time Nojpetén, the focus of the conquest... Simon Burchell (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed....now onto the prose. Looking good at first glance but I wonder if some words are repeated and can be folded in somehow. I read this on my smartphone yesterday - will look again and see if I can find some examples. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Petén was not politically unified and was divided into a number of different Maya polities engaged in a complex web of alliances and enmities. - isn't stating it is "not politically unified" redundant given you then clarify its political status?
The geography section has several short sentences separated by semicolons - I massaged this a little as I felt the prose was a tad stilted, but no real alternatives jump out for the rest - this is not particularly actionable (i.e. not a deal-breaker) but if you can massage this section at all it'd be helpful.
I've had a go at this. Unfortunately, by its nature this section is rather dry, relating a lot of figures about temperature and rainfall. It may read slightly better now (or it may not...) Simon Burchell (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
agree -maybe it reads better, or maybe I'm in a better mood...not sure.....anyway, it seems a little better now. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 08:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of the Petén before the conquest would be better if presented in chronological order methinks.
early Spanish reports suggest that sizeable Maya populations existed in Petén - "sizeable" a bit nebulous - some further accuracy would be helpful but not actionable if the source doesn't have any further clarification I guess
I've been looking all over the place for a figure, and can't find even a rough estimate. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The second polity in importance was that... - odd phrasing. Can we rephrase this?
I've had a go - now reads The Kowoj were the second polity in importance, and they were hostile towards their Itza neighbours. The Kowoj were located to the east of the Itza, around the eastern lakes: Lake Salpetén, Lake Macanché, Lake Yaxhá and Lake Sacnab.
It's the "second polity in importance" that sounds odd to me - maybe if it were just "Second in importance...."
Cas, just passing through, no special hurry but are you still planning to comment further? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry - spare time has been lacking. Anyway, back to it.....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 08:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.... with both meeting somewhere in Ch'ol territory; the plan was later modified - errr, modified to what? the last sentence is very abrupt and leaves me hanging..
I've clarified this - it is covered in more detail later in the article. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the beginning of March 1695, Ursúa ordered captain Alonso García de Paredes to explore the road south from Campeche city - is this the same road as in the preceding sentence? If so, I'd say "this road" as this bit is otherwise repetitive.
By 1708 only about 6,000 Maya remained in central Petén, compared to ten times that number in 1697 - I'd lose the second clause as we've established the 60,000 at the beginning of the para.
Thanks for casting your eagle-eye over this Nikkimaria. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Quadell
This is a fascinating article. It is extremely thorough and meticulously sourced. I find no major problems; I can only offer these paltry issues and suggestions for your consideration.
Thanks for taking the time to review this lengthy article. I hope to work through your comments fairly rapidly. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A word from a grammar martinet: I am delighted to see that this article uses its own distinct style which it maintains throughout. For instance, commas are omitted after prepositional phrases that introduce sentences (e.g. "In the first half of the 16th century Spain established..."); while unusual, this is perfectly acceptible. There is one stylistic choice, however, that I feel crosses the line into being an error. When two independent clauses are joined with a coordinating conjunction ("and" or "but"), most style guides insist a comma must precede the coordinating conjunction. So note this change in the lead, and these changes in a later section. Please check for this throughout. (Note though that this does not apply when one clause is dependent; it is fully acceptable to omit the comma in "Petén was not politically unified and was divided into...", since the two predicates share a subject.)
I've put in some commas but I'm afraid I'm suffering from "comma blindness" - I'm far from sure that they're going in the right places and am sure I must be missing some. If you point out the offending sentences, I'll be happy to insert commas - but my grammar isn't strong enough to confidently find them. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the rest. – Quadell(talk) 14:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for that - it was giving me a headache! All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The date range given in the infobox is "1525 – c. 1697". I know date ranges for such long conflicts are often quite fuzzy, but is 1525 the best year to start with? The "Background to the conquest" section covers a time period up to the early 17th century. The lead sentence says that the conquest of Petén was "the last stage of the conquest of Guatemala", but the conquest of Guatemala didn't start until 1524. I just want the summary dates to be as accurate as the detailed facts will allow.
No Spanish expedition is recorded as entering Petén before Hernán Cortés in 1525, and the last significant battle took place in 1697, the year commonly regarded as the final conquest date of the Maya. The 1524 date refers to the conquest of highland Guatemala, outside of the region directly upon which this article concentrates; I think putting in the start year as 1524 would be misleading and the dates as given accurately reflect the approximate duration of the conflict. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I agree that 1524 would be too early. My concern is that 1525 might be to early as well. I'll explain.
If someone tries to get a sense of the conflict from just the lead section and the infobox (as many casual readers will), it might be confusing for them to see the following: the entire conquest of Guatemala lasted 173 years, starting in 1524, and the last stage of that conflict (Petén) started in 1525, just a year into it. If the reader looks further down the article, she will see that the prelude to the Petén conflict is described as starting in 1527, two years after the conflict supposedly began. (The prelude section goes on to cover events well into the 17th century.) A reader would expect the final phase of the conquest of Guatemala to occur later in that general conflict, and she would further expect for the prelude to the Petén conflict to precede the conflict itself. See where the confusion comes from?
Now I know history is messy. Sometimes the last phase to finish is not the last phase to start. Sometimes the causes and prelude to a conflict will continue well into the conflict itself. But we have to pick years for the infobox and "Spanish colonial campaigns" template, and those years should seem to roughly correspond to what's described in the text. – Quadell(talk) 14:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it's just a matter of picking a date. I admit Cortés didn't enter Petén with the intention of bringing it into the Empire in 1525. Part of the problem is that different colonial authorities made attempts over different territories from different regions. The first serious attempt was in 1618, when the Franciscans tried to achieve peaceful submission. Would you be happier with that date in the infobox? Simon Burchell (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For consistency's sake, I believe either one of two changes needs to be made. (1) The infobox and "Spanish colonial campaigns" template could be changed to reflect a timeframe described in the text, such as beginning in 1618; or (2) the text and section names in the article could be modified to reflect a conquest that begins in 1525, with a prelude that precedes it. Either solution would be acceptable. – Quadell(talk) 15:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the infobox/navbox dates to 1618, as suggested. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems internally and externally consistent now. – Quadell(talk) 17:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 2nd sentence in the lead describes Petén physically as a "lowland plain" with "dense rainforest". The 4th sentence again describes Petén as "a densely forested lowland region". This seems redundent.
When you bundle citations, you usually use a full-stop to separate sources (although citation 98 uses a comma). This can sometimes be confusing for the reader, when encountering a citation such as "Jones 1998, pp. 129–130. ITMB 2000.", to know that two sources are used. Would you consider using linebreaks (<br />) between multiple sources, as in the second example at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Bundling citations? I believe in would improve readability. (See citation 254 in this version for an example of what this would look like. I can assist with this change, if you would like.)
When the notes are sourced, consider using separate citations (i.e. separate links to the "Citations" section from the note). This would make the sourcing easier to read and understand when there are multiple sources for a given note, or when the source is stated mid-note. Again, I enjoy doing cite-work, so I'm willing to help, if asked.
Done. Thanks for the suggestion - I didn't know it was possible! Simon Burchell (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there should be a source for the existence of two Bacalars in Quintana Roo (note 1).
This is just a suggestion, but consider converting the "Historical sources" and "Archaeology" sections into subsections of a "Sources" supersection. ("Historical sources" might be renamed "Written accounts", if this is done.) My reasoning is simply that both sections fulfill a similar purpose.
I've only recently moved the "Historical sources" section to the end of the article, and it now seems to sit naturally with the archaeology section. I thought (but can't now find in the MOS) that subsections should not sit immediatly under a higher level section header without an introductory paragraph, which I think would be redundant here - so I haven't combined the sections. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly leading toward supporting, and I look forward to your replies. – Quadell(talk) 16:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the issue I raised have been swiftly and thoroughly dealt with. The only remaining issue I see is the confusion about the timeline for the prelude to the conflict and the conflict itself. – Quadell(talk) 14:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A fascinating article, admirably thorough, and meticulously sourced. – Quadell(talk) 17:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Quadell - especially for having the patience to sort out those damn commas! Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because… I think it meets the criteria. Crisco and others, I think, have asked for a commemorative coin article where things didn't go terribly wrong, and where no one ran off with the money. On this one, things went more or less as they should have, and the money was properly applied. The only problems were, the subject of the commemorative was terribly obscure and it took a while to get the memorial built. Wehwalt (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed comments from Cirt moved to talk page, by Cirt. — Cirt (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm comfortable with supporting after the responses to my comments, above. High quality article. Deserves the star. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and the support, and for the additions.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome, and my pleasure, — Cirt (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review:
A couple of minor issues:
Refs 19 and 20 appear to be to the same source. One shows a page number, the other doesn't.
I have ref 19 being page 215 of the Bowers article, with ref 20 being pages 215 and 216. Not sure I see the issue.
Ah, my apologies! the latter page refs are at the top of the third column, and I missed them. Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"L.W. Hoffecker" source: It is not immediately clear why the name is enclosed in quotes.
That is the name of the article. It is an obituary.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look fine. I will read the article over the next day or two and provide a more general review. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
General comments: Not many:
The reason for the commemorative issue – Elgin's centenary – should I think be given in the first, rather than the second paragraph of the lead.
"The latter year, a watch company was founded there, and the city became well known its timepieces;" A word missing after "known": ("known for its timepieces")
"Trygve Rovelstad (1903–1990) ... sought to erect a statue as a monument to the pioneer in his hometown of Elgin." Not clear who is meant by "the pioneer". It reads as though it refers to an individual, though I assume it's a generalisation for the early American pioneers. This needs to be explicit, especially for non-American readers.
"The sculptor managed to get a bill introduced..." No sculptor has previously been mentioned in the text, so clarification needed
"L.W. Hoffecker on July 11 wrote..." would be better phrased as "L.W. Hoffecker wrote on July 11..."
"There were a large number of commemorative coin bills in Congress in 1936..." Any particular reason for this? The year doesn't immediately ring any anniversary bells.
The use of "plus" in prose, in the sense of "as well as", is usually deprecated by prose stylists, and in any event is rendered pointless by the later "extra". I'd insert a comma after "coins", and replace "plus" with "with" or "also".
"According to his wife, Gloria, he was offered a job at the Mint but declined." This sentence has no relation with the rest of the paragraph, and looks out of context. It doesn't seem relevant to the article's subject.
I think it's relevant as it shows Sinnock's view of his competence. When a statue goes unfinished for sixty-five years you have to wonder. I'll add "by Sinnock". Interesting to wonder if he would have become Chief Engraver instead of Gilroy Roberts, and would have designed the Kennedy half dollar ….--Wehwalt (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Design" section: three "heads" in the first line
"Release" section, second paragraph: the date should be given at the start of the sentence: "On July 1, 1936, Hoffecker sent off 3,500 letters offering the new coins, which had not yet been struck", not as at present.
The Pioneer Family image looks unnecessarily large at 400px. Recommend a max of 300px
Very well, thank you. I've made the changes not addressed above.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: on basis of above responses and a final readthrough. Brianboulton (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thorough review and kind comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (formerly Oppose). I don't wish to seem rude, but has the article been read through properly? From the first para of main text:
"The latter year, a watch company" (add preposition)
"became well known its timepieces" (add "for")
"notable for manufacturing of tools" (add article)
"and weekly publications" (not part of "manufacturing", so another noun is needed)
"to be distributed to churchgoers" (why not "which were distributed"?)
"on Sunday" (just one Sunday?)
There are only three sentences in that para, so that's a high ratio of problems. Given that criterion 1a is "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard", I'd expect that the great majority of simple things like those above would have been corrected prior to nomination. Based on that, I don't wish to go through the remainder of the article, but recommend that at least one person does, possibly outside the formal FAC procedure. EddieHugh (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask reviewers to look carefully at that paragraph. That being said, I'm not sure it is as dire as you suggest. I think the preposition debatable on the first one, but have added it. The second one, other reviewers have pointed out the need, and I've added it. The third one for clarity I've changed "manufacturing" to "production". That brings in the weekly publication, which are "produced", and so your fourth concern is addressed later. I don't like your proposal on the fifth one because I think my phrasing makes it a bit clearer these were not just Elgin churches. The last one I think the existing phrasing is adequate. I think the plural unneeded because all Sundays are included in "Sunday". That being said, I see no harm in changing it to "Sundays", and have done so. Would you be willing to read a little further?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concentrating on other things at the moment. In the interest of fairness, I've changed the heading from "Oppose" to "Comments", the gist of which are that the whole should be looked at carefully. I hope that it goes well. EddieHugh (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I would be grateful if you would look further as time permits. I have cleared up those glitches you mention and think that was just an unusual rough spot.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On a point of clarification: I did read through the whole article before posting my points which are listed above. EddieHugh commented before Wehwalt had responded to my review. The "for" was obviously an omission; on the matter of prepositions, I am never sure of their general usage in AmEng, and I generally accept what writers such as Wehwalt do. Other EddieHugh points are more a matter of style choices, though I have to say I prefer "Sundays" to the singular. Brianboulton (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I've got to give more read throughs before submitting to review. That being said, I think EddieHugh would not have found the rest of the article as bad. I gave it another careful read which caught a couple of glitches.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments
"weekly publications to be distributed to churchgoers" Is there an easier way to say that? What are we talking about here? Church bulletins? Religious pamphlets?
"sent an acceptance" might be better as "accepted his offer" or "wrote to accept his offer".
That's all I have on the first read-through. Interesting article on a fairly obscure coin. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I've done those things. Yes, it is an obscure coin, but we got the images so we needed an article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right! I meant not that it shouldn't have an article, but that it's impressive that you could find enough source material to make one. I'll give it another pass before supporting, but it looks good to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I was too. That's an impediment in this sort of article. It seems Bowers has Hoffecker's records.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything else that needs attention. Changed to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both for the support and the good wishes. I basically wrote the article because I got in some commemorative coin images by license, so ...--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Crisco 1492
sculptural group - does this mean "group of sculptures"?
I took the term directly from the source. A group of sculptures seems to be what is going on up in Elgin, yes.
Elgin, Illinois, located on the Fox River about 30 miles (48 km) west of Chicago, was founded in 1835 by James and Hezekiah Gifford, who named it. - this sentence could use a bit of simplification, methinks
Split. I like the ending.
(the journal of the American Numismatic Association (ANA)) - shouldn't ANA be in square brackets? (Brackets within brackets)
Bracketed.
"These should also be 10" in diameter, and this is where your trouble commences. These sculptors all want to incorporate their own ideas in the design and ask anywhere from $400.00 to $1,000.00 for their work, telling you what trouble it is to get the approval of the Commission of Fine Arts and many other things which do not exist." - is there a way to avoid having the straight quotes indicating inches here? I was initially reading this quote as ending at 20 and wanted to ask "10 what?"
Played with, feel free to modify.
Rovelstad wrote back with an acceptance in November. - is there a way to avoid this construct ("wrote back with an acceptance" sounds odd to me)
Yeah, but it was depicted on the medal, the coin, and much promotional literature without copyright.
For a work completed in 2001, I can't see much chance it would be PD or free to use. The engravings would have attracted a different copyright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for tonight. Rest tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prose looks good (finished my read through). Waiting on discussion of the image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. I need more evidence to make that case.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and images. Good job, as usual. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a couple of minor suggestions (not show-stoppers):
"The coins were to remain on sale through Hoffecker until January 1, 1937 or until they were sold, whichever came first." All sold, or sold out, maybe?
Sold out, then.
"he had completed them in plaster of Paris, needing to be bronzed before display." Something about the way this is phrased makes it seem like "needing to be bronzed" is modifying "he". I kicked it around a couple times but couldn't think of another way to say it.
I've played with it. Let me know what you think.
Looks mature and ready-to-go. Nice work and interesting as always. --Laser brain(talk) 17:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you on all counts.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Addressed comments by Rejectwater moved to talk page, per agreement with Rejecwater, see diff.
Support Great article, well referenced, very informative. I believe it meets all the criteria. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the Support! — Cirt (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an excellent article on a very interesting and educational film. I especially like all the OTRS free images. Well-cited to reliable sources, feels very complete, and was a nice read. Good work, easily deserves the star. Just one quick question: Citation #7 is the DVD Verdict review which is used to source some quotes in the Contents summary. Any reason why this review is not summarized in the Reception section? Regards, Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the Support. Also, Done. -- I've gone ahead and added DVD Verdict to the Reception section, per your suggestion. — Cirt (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source check and comments from Gen. Quon (addressed)[edit]
Random Source Check - Ref 11. is correctly used to cite how many times the word 'fuck' is used and to back up a point about how the director feels that other directors should fight against censorship. Ref. 31 accurately backs up the claim that the word gained its current meaning during the world wars and how its flippancy is beneficial. Ref. 34 correctly backs up info regarding Apollo 16. Ref. 56 correctly cites that the AFI festival is at the ArcLight Hollywood on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood, California. Ref. 60 cites that the film was shown at the Florida Film Festival. These were all randomly picked, and were all completely accurate. The prose is excellent (I fixed a few boo-boos) and the images are wonderful. Thus, I see no reason other than to Support this article's promotion.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 04:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed comments by Jimfbleak moved to talk page, per agreement with user, see diff.
Support and comments from Jim. Nice work and meets the standard, just a couple of very minor things you might want to consider Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your Support. — Cirt (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - all OK (CC, own work, OTRS). Sources and authors provided (agree, nice work with the OTRS-tickets). Just 1 nitpick (Done):
File:Tera_Patrick_in_Fuck_film.jpg - The longer statement in the main text probably needs 3 sources, but does the short caption (looks uncontroversial and simple) need all of them aswell? Remove some cites in caption, if possible.GermanJoe (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Trimmed to one citation for the Tera Patrick image caption, per above recommendation from GermanJoe. And thank you for the Image check ! — Cirt (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed comments from Quadell moved to talk page, per agreement with user, see diff.
No further objections. Also, the lead, images, and sourcing all seem satisfactory. Note that this is not a full review, but it doesn't look like this nomination will suffer from a lack of reviews. – Quadell(talk) 14:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead uses a serial comma in "linguist Reinhold Albert Aman, journalism analyst David Shaw, and Jesse Sheidlower of the Oxford English Dictionary", but omits one in "art, linguistics, society and comedy". Please be sure the entire article either omits or uses the serial comma consistently.
The term "primarily mixed reviews" is usually a poor choice, and it's a pet peeve of mine. If a film received "mixed" reviews, that means the reviews aren't primarily anything, either positive or negative. ("Primarily mixed reviews" an annoyingly common term on Wikipedia, however.) Anyway, consider "mixed reviews" or "both positive and negative reviews" or something similar.
This in fact was one of the expressions in the lead that prompted me to ask for further prose work -- great minds... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any further problems with the lead. It effectively summarizes the article, and provides a proverbial "hook". Yes, it does feel a bit choppy to go from one celebrity's random thought to the next loosely-related thought, but I've seen the film; it's a choppy mishmash of themes around a charged word. I don't think any accurate, brief summary could seem much more fluid than what this lead provides. I have not copyedited the rest of the article. – Quadell(talk) 14:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response to further comments from Quadell
Thank you for the helpful cleanup of minor comma issues in the lead.
The lead is largely unreadable, thanks to excessive name-dropping—of disciplines, celebrities, scholars, songs and media outlets—contributing to a "sea of blue" effect thanks to the wikilinks (overlong book names don't help). Instead of going on in such detail about who participated in the film, you should concentrate on what the film is about. Apart from "a defence of free speech" the reader really doesn't glean much.
Also, by expunging the names and details, you could build an engaging narrative—what was the idea behind the film, how it was made, what's it about, was it well received, was it a hit, how did scholars see the film, was it controversial—much more clearly than now.—(self-locked-out User:Indopug)122.164.151.173 (talk) 08:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these helpful comments, User:Indopug, I shall get on addressing them right now. — Cirt (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comments from Indopug
Done. Reduced number of disciplines mentioned in the lead.
Done. Trimmed number of celebrities name-dropped in the lead.
Done. Copy-edited lead to reflect more actual information from film's contents, rather than simply listing celebrities.
Done. Removed mention of the songs from the lead.
Done. Removed wikilinks and "sea of blue" from the lead.
Done. Trimmed overlong book name in the lead.
Thank you very much, User:Indopug, I think the lead now looks much better. Most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cirt, I realise you've pinged Indopug to check over the changes and he hasn't as returned here as yet. Failing that I'd like to see someone else take another look over the lead as it is, indeed the entire article from a purely prose point of view (John perhaps?). The plot summary, as an example, seems a bit choppy to me and I think could use another set of eyes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, the article already received a copy edit from Miniapolis from WP:GOCE and a peer review and there are positive comments about the prose from multiple editors, above at this FAC, including Wehwalt. But sure, further input on how to improve the quality of the prose is always appreciated. I had just thought the FAC was progressing quite nicely in a constructive manner, I admit it is a bit frustrating to see it stalemated especially with such good level of positive participation and comments expressed about its quality, above at this FAC. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you read the peer review, I did not think the synopsis was the strongest point of the article. But when I looked at it on my read over at FAC, it looked good enough. One of the hardest things about reviewing is biting your tongue when you would do it differently but the way the editor did it was OK, and in a close call I tend to go with the judgment of an experienced editor Not saying others couldn't view it differently..--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see, that certainly makes sense, Wehwalt, thank you. Please note I made some changes with respect to additional helpful feedback from Quadell, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt asked me to take a look and I am doing so. From an initial read I can see changes I would make to the prose. Many of them would probably be pretty minor and uncontroversial and I intend to just make them in the article and note it here for your approval. But there's one that leaps out at me that isn't simple; it's the lead sentence Fuck (styled as FUCK, F★CK, or F*CK;[1][2] alternatively titled Fuck: A Documentary and The F-Bomb: A Documentary[3][4]) is a 2005 American documentary film by director Steve Anderson which argues that the word "fuck" is an integral part of societal discussions about freedom of speech and censorship. I see the multiple renderings of the title and their multiple references as pretty intrusive right at the start of the article. If we were to streamline this to something like Fuck (styled as F*CK; alternatively titled The F-Bomb: A DocumentaryNB) is a 2005 American documentary film by director Steve Anderson about the word "fuck". The film argues that the word is an integral part of societal discussions about freedom of speech and censorship., would we want to keep ★ or * as the censorship mark? We certainly don't need to record the all-caps, the different typographical stars, or the presence of the subtitle "A Documentary", and we shouldn't need to have multiple references for them in the lead. We could even use a note to a fuller set of sources where I've typed NB. What do folks think? Don't worry, I won't be this verbose or nitpicky through the rest of the review. --John (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This might also be a good place for a footnote; all the alternate titles could be listed there. – Quadell(talk) 18:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I had in mind with the NB suggestion above, sorry I wasn't clear. --John (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've broken up that sentence as suggested by John, above. I've also moved the alternative titles to a footnote, as suggestd by John and Quadell, above. I don't know why I didn't think of that before, it looks much better this way! Please note the reason I added those alternate titles to the lede in the first place was because of a request from a talk page visitor, see Talk:Fuck_(film)/Archive_1#Alternate_titles. Thank you, John, for your input, keep us posted with the prose changes, — Cirt (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Ah yes, suddenly I can see "use a note" right there. I guess the bad news is, I'll have to reduce my self-evaluated "reading comprehension" score tad. But the good news is, great minds think alike? Regardless, it looks as if Cirt has implemented this. – Quadell(talk) 19:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Quadell, thanks to the wise suggestion of John, I think this particular minor issue is now resolved. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John, your copy-edits are excellent, except one: "It's a two billion dollar bushiness". Thought I'd bring it to your attention, though I must admit, it's quite an amusing mental image! All the best, – Quadell(talk) 20:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, good catch Quadell, I think that was an autocomplete error there. So, with that correction, we have thisthis series of edits; main thrust was improving flow by removing wordiness. Beware of elegant variation and especially trying to use as many synonyms for "said" as possible. A little repetition is preferable to looking like you were using a thesaurus. "A number of" just means "several" or "many" so use the shorter form. We don't need to link countries or put items in See also that are already linked. I've slimmed the article down and made it more readable without losing any meaning from it. I might have one further look at it but this is the bulk of what I wanted to do. --John (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've gone through all the copy edits by John edit-by-edit and they all look great. :) Thanks very much, most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have two further questions before I can support.
1) I've no doubt that These scholars are described in captions as "cunning linguists".[16] is true; but do we need to say that in the article? It seems to lower the tone a little, but maybe that is just me being prudish.
2) Somewhat similarly, In the film, opponents of the word "fuck" use an argument commonly known as "Think of the children".[23][b] is no doubt true also, but is it explicitly stated in these terms in the source and if so, is it important enough to mention? If yes, do we need to mention it and link it twice, one in the text and once in a footnote?
I don't think I'll have any further questions after these are addressed. --John (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Removed this bit from the article.
Done. Added quote from source to the citation to make this more clear that this was the exact point made by the secondary source.
Done. Removed one of the links for this, it is now linked only once in a footnote.
Okay, John, those are all now addressed, as well. — Cirt (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support; all of my prose misgivings have been addressed and any further minor improvements can take place via normal editing. --John (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, John, for your Support. All of your copy editing help is most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks indeed to everyone who's participated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Resolute 01:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Americans of a certain generation have Neil Armstrong and the moon landing. Canadians of a certain generation have, what else? Hockey. We have the 1972 Summit Series, the final game of which nearly brought two nations to a complete stand-still. A Cold War battle for national pride, hockey supremacy, and validation of way of life. In the dying seconds of the final game, Paul Henderson scored the most famous goal in Canadian hockey history. It won the series, saved a nation's pride and instantly transformed him from decent hockey player to living legend. But what else should one expect from a man born on Lake Huron and today a Christian minister and published author?
Last year's 40th anniversary of the Summit Series inspired me to improve Henderson's article, and it reached GA status in November. It went through peer review a few months ago, and after completing another FAC, I've spent the last several days preparing it for your comments, criticism, and hopefully, support. I appreciate all feedback. Cheers! Resolute 01:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bear with me, I'm a bit of a first timer at this sort of targeted source reviewing: I see one deadlink and no dab links or harv errors. Would love it if you used citation templates (especially as minor errors like the spacing errors in #56 and #80 are less likely to happen), but to each their own. Otherwise, sources look reliable to me (mainly just historical Canadian newspapers). Ruby2010/2013 04:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh dammitsomuch. I thought I checked for deadlinks before nominating. Thanks for catching that. I've replaced all four uses from that source with others. And thank you for taking the time to review the sources! Resolute 15:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Generally, this is very good and certainly very readable. The coverage and content seems to be top-notch as usual. However, there are a few prose issues which need to be tidied. Also, and unusually for a hockey article, perhaps a little too much is expected of the reader in terms of jargon. There are plenty of links, but rather than have the reader follow the links, perhaps a little more explanation could be given here. Not a huge issue, though. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"the series was viewed as a battle for both hockey supremacy and way of life": Although I appreciate what is intended here, I'm not sure that "way of life" was at stake here! Maybe something along the lines of cultural supremacy?
Nice way of putting it, changed. Resolute 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing on his early life in the lead.
Honestly, I can't figure out how to put anything there into the lead without it looking awkward and out of place. Any suggestions? Resolute 02:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just a sentence about his upbringing? I think it needs a touch to meet WP:LEAD, but not a huge issue for me. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It was voted the "sports moment of the century"": By who?
"A born again Christian": Should this be "born-again Christian"? I'm never sure on hyphens.
I honestly don't know, actually. I've seen so many examples with and without the hyphen that I just left it the same as the article title. Resolute 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm not sure either, so unless anyone else chips in, no problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per the standard for hyphenation, it would be born-again Christian but "Bob was born again". A specific example can be found here. Hobit (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, changed. Thanks. Resolute 15:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"His father, Garnet, was fighting for Canada during the Second World War at the time and Paul was nearly three years old before they met": As the previous sentence was about his mother, this looks a little like his mother and father did not meet until Paul was nearly three.
Reworded. Resolute 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Garnet worked for the Canadian National Railway following his return and the family – Paul was the eldest to brother Bruce and sisters Marilyn, Carolyn and Sandra –[3]": MoS says that the reference should go before the dash.
Changed. I treated it like any other punctuation. Resolute 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So was I until quite recently and someone pointed it out! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Paul's first experiences with hockey came at a young age in the basement of the Chinese restaurant operated by Charlie Chin": Perhaps elaborate how he could play hockey in a basement.
I am not sure how at first blush. It is probably a case of a kid picking up a stick and whacking a ball or puck off the walls. I'm hoping that Henderson's autobiography expands on this. Resolute 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that was it exactly. He played with Chin's sons using a ball. (Note that I didn't link to ball hockey as that article is not representative of what young kids mashing a ball around a floor would be.) Resolute 02:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"His father coached his youth teams, and at one pee-wee tournament": I'm a little uncomfortable with the use of "pee-wee" here because a) I suspect it is not widely known what this means outside North America, and b) it lacks the formality that should be found in an encyclopaedia. The link goes to "minor hockey"; why not say that?
Changed. "Pee-wee" is actually the proper term for the age group, but you make a good point that "minor hockey" is sufficient for the article. Resolute 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"They married in 1962 and he considered giving up the game to become a history and physical education teacher": The use of "and" suggests that he considered this because of his marriage, but could it be expanded why he considered doing so?
Done. Henderson's 2012 memoir expanded on his reasons. Resolute 02:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Points linked in the lead, but not on first mention in the body, which is the convention used in the rest of the article.
"In his second, he took a slashing penalty on his lone shift.": This loses me, I'm afraid.
Reworded. Resolute 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Henderson estimated that he played only 20 seconds of ice time over the two games, but took nine penalties in minutes": So does this, and I think "ice time" is a bit jargony.
Reworded. Better? Resolute 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"using his speed and aggressive nature to score 10 goals and 24 points": I imagine he used a stick, rather than speed and an aggressive nature! Maybe "and his speed and aggression/aggressive nature helped him to score…"?
Changed per your suggestion. Resolute 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"He was used primarily in a defensive role and on the penalty kill": Not too clear on a penalty kill, but I suspect that linking is the only efficient way to explain it.
Already linked to short-handed, which explains the term. Resolute 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The Maple Leafs offered Henderson only a small raise following the year": Following the year sounds a little odd to me. It looks like a typo for "the following year" but I suspect something like "after the season" is the meaning. Maybe clarify?
That is the meaning, but I was trying to avoid repetition on use of "season". After consideration, I simply removed "following the year" as it is implied that the contract offer followed the season. Do you agree? Resolute 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"European teams masked the status of their best players by having them serve in the military or hold other jobs affiliated with the teams, even though hockey was their only occupation, so as to retain amateur status": The source merely says this of the Soviet Union team, and it seems a little harsh to suggest that all European teams did this.
Oh man, I could go for hours on the level of corruption within the IIHF at that time, but it wouldn't be relevant. While I do believe it was most European nations (certainly the Czechs were the same), I have changed it to reference only the Soviet Union after consulting another source that also only mentioned them. But these are in the context of the Summit Series, so I may revisit this if I search out a broader source. Resolute 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll leave it unstruck in case you find more. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Henderson, like most of his teammates, were frustrated by both his team's play": As written, this can read like Henderson played for two teams.
"while Canada virtually shut down": Whatever the source may say, this strikes me as something of a wild exaggeration. Maybe reword to tone it down a little, and to make it more encyclopaedic. To be honest, the next sentence about offices and schools would seem to be enough by itself.
Amazingly, it isn't. Something like 73% of the Canadian population watched the game. But I did remove the statement and joined the Russian viewership with the subsequent statement on Canadian. Resolute 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Fine now, and if it was so huge, feel free to re-add the shut down comment. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The two teams ended the first period tied at two goals apiece, but Canada trailed after two, 5–3, and Soviet officials stated they would claim the overall victory if the game ended in a draw as a result of scoring more goals throughout the series": Canada trailed after two what? Also, as written it looks as if the Soviets claimed in the middle of the game that they would win on goals scored. Is this true? If not, when was the claim made?
Fixed the first statement, and yes, it became known during the game that the Soviets intended to claim victory in the event of a tie. Resolute 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"when Peter Mahovlich came off on a line change": Jargony?
Changed to "substituted", though it is a less commonly used term in this context. Still conveys the meaning though. Resolute 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get the impression that his move to the WHA may have been a huge deal; I'm assuming some kind of commercial rivalry, and that "poaching" of players would have caused publicity. If this was the case, maybe a sentence or two on the NHL/WHA relationship would help the general reader?
You are correct. I will have to search some sources on this before I can make a change. Resolute 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit about Ballard (Maple Leafs owner) and his views of the WHA and its relation to Henderson. Resolute 02:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The WHA merged with the NHL following the 1978–79 season, however Birmingham was not invited to join the NHL": The grammar is a bit off here: however cannot be used like this; a new sentence, semi-colon, or a different word is needed.
reworded slightly. Resolute 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"He was again offered a spot on the Flames, in part to help develop the team's young players, however since the franchise relocated to Canada…": Again, however cannot be used like this.
Reworded. Resolute 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are three howevers in the Atlanta section, which seems to be too many. Also three in personal life, where however is used incorrectly again ("…to become a colour commentator for Maple Leafs broadcasts in 1981, however Ballard…" and "...40th anniversary celebrations of the Summit Series in Moscow,[94] however he was responding well…")
Switched a few, including the two you note specifically. Resolute 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the citation for the statistics given in the form it is in the references, rather than as a reference for the table?
Personal choice mostly, and an unofficial standard I've developed over time on all of my FA and GAs. I don't really like floating reference superscripts and find this to be the cleaner solution. Resolute 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have a good legacy section, but apart from his comment that he did not deserve to be in the hall of fame, there is little critical judgement on his career. How good was he? What did coaches/journalists/fans think of him? Also, can we say anything about his style or technique? Perhaps a little more is required on these lines, if it exists. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to do a bit of digging. But as one would expect, his legacy is almost completely framed around the Summit Series. Resolute 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made a small addition about his speed, shot and lack of puck handling skill. But as expected, nearly everything I can find relates to either the Summit Series or whether he should be in the HHOF because of the Summit Series. Resolute 02:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some very good comments here, thank you. Some of it will require that I consult his 1992 autobiography, a book I don't currently have. I will have to check it out of the library tomorrow before I can fully respond to these. Thanks, Resolute 23:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, responded to most. There are a few points I will have to research. I will get back to you on those. Resolute 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Three more down. Now just to expand on the legacy. But that will have to wait for tomorrow. Resolute 02:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And that should be everything, I hope! Resolute 02:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I'm happy to support now. The only remaining question for me is whether the lead is enough. I'm fine with it, but others may disagree. I think it may also need a check from a non-sports reader, but I followed this well enough despite having learned what little I know about hockey from WP articles! Nice work as usual. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Detroit and Toronto: One too many words in "It was came late in the game...".
Summit Series: "Henderson, like most of his teammates, were frustrated by his team's play and the negative reaction they received from the crowd." "were" → "was", since the word refers to Henderson.
It might be good to spell out the publisher of ref 78 (IIHF).Giants2008 (Talk) 01:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, done and done. Thanks! Resolute 15:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – After the few issues I saw were addressed, I'm fully confident that the article meets the FA criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:PaulHendersonSig.jpg: it is my understanding that while the US holds signatures to be PD, Canada considers them eligible for copyright protection. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am rather indifferent to the signature myself. I simply left it because it was already there, but have no issue with removing it if there is any concern. Of course, it would have helped if the source of the image were included in the image description. Removed. Resolute 16:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support generally on prose and accessability to a lay reader - looks like Sarastro's review was a big help in this department. I haven't reviewed things like sourcing and if the article had any technical errors, I wouldn't be able to tell. Couple of points for improvement:
Can a link or explanation be provided for what an "assist" is?
Second para of the "junior" section: the expression "clinching game" is used twice. Can this be varied, eg, "decider"?
"Detroit and Toronto" section has this: "but as the fourth line right wing, received limited ice time. He was used primarily in a defensive role and on the penalty kill." I know both "line" and "penalty kill" have been wikilinked, but is there any chance of telling us non-Hockey people what either of these things means, in a way that might advance our understanding of Henderson's qualities as a player?
That 1972 series story is a great one, and not something of which I had previously heard. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the first two. On the third, I'll have to go back to Henderson's autobiography to see if he expanded on his role at that time beyond what I wrote. I'll have to get the book from the library. Resolute 20:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what's needed, then okay, but it wasn't quite what i had had in mind. I suppose what I meant was: what are the characteristics involved in being "fourth line right wing" or "on the penalty kill"? A non-Hockey person has no idea - do these imply, for example, he was only a good offensive player; or defensive player; or not very experienced player; or good at hitting penalty shots; or whatever? That was all I meant...
The table at the end has "PIM" as a column heading. This is wikilinked to penalty (ice hockey) but actually that did not immediately help me. Can you add a footnote or something that spells out what PIM stands for? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the former, this is actually a more complicated question than you think. A standard roster runs four forward lines and the top lines usually have the best offensive players, working down to least offensive. But in a case like Henderson, the reason for his being on the fourth line very likely had little to do with a lack of offensive ability, but simple inexperience and/or Detroit having at least three players at right wing who were rated as better players by the coaching staff at that time. So in that respect, Henderson being on the fourth line at that time doesn't necessarily imply anything about his skills. It merely defines the role he was asked to play at that time: defence-oriented. As to being a penalty killer, I am not actually sure how I could word that within the article that isn't already explained by the linked article to short handed. I am certainly open to suggestions! As to PIM, I would rather not change the format of the table if I can avoid it since this is how it is rendered on a few thousand articles. I did modify the lead to the linked Penalty (ice hockey) article to make PIM stand out. Is this sufficient? Thanks, Resolute 19:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the latter, what about using a 'hover over' text such as is achieved by {{Win-loss record|w=1|l=2|d=1}} elsewhere in the article? Yes there may be thousands, but there's only one you're getting to FA right now :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I just tried that, but the wikilink overrides the hover text. Resolute 01:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As to the first concern - would it help if I removed the mention that he was on the fourth line, and instead only noted that he received limited ice time in a defensive role? That way you aren't left trying to assimilate two foreign concepts in quick succession. Resolute 01:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would help, unless you think Canadian hockey afficionados would object to losing that particular detail. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and not really. Being on the fourth line usually implies limited ice time anyway. Resolute 02:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Rejectwater
Image alts. See WP:ALT, especially the Bush/Blair and Queen Elizabeth examples. Also, the displayed alt for the infobox image doesn't match the code. The parameter should be "alt" rather than "image_alt" per the documentation at Template:Infobox ice hockey player. Great article, thank you for all the work that has gone into it. Kind regards, Rejectwater (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did miss this comment the first time around. Thanks for bringing it forward! Hopefully I have proper alt text now! Resolute 01:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the alts are much better now. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support with comments. I left a lot of comments on this article when it was at peer review and they were mostly addressed. It was a high quality article at the time, and many of my comments were quite picky. I think it meets the criteria, but I do have a few more comments. These do not stand in the way of me adding my support, but may be worth Resolute's time:
I generally agree with Sarastro regarding jargon, and did mention this at the PR, I think it's improved enough however.
"The game was also notable for Bobby Clarke's two-handed slash" - could a less jargony term or phrase than "slash" be used here?
"It was also viewed as a battle between contrasting ways of life, particularly in the Soviet Union, where success in sport was used to promote the superiority of communism over western capitalism" -- is Henderson himself a good source for this statement?
"An angered Ballard never forgave Henderson, and never spoke to him again" -- mentioned this in the PR, but I think this statement needs a more reliable source than Henderson himself.
The career statistics reference listed under footnotes is giving me a harv error. Should it be moved from footnotes to its own section below general?
Those are all I have. I'm not the greatest with prose, but found not glaring problems. Good work on the article, and sorry it took so long for me to give it another read over. -- Shuddetalk 09:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for the review! I've tried to modify the piece on Clarke's slash a little, and pulled a second ref in to reinforce the battle statement. FWIW, that entire chapter in the book treats Henderson in the third person. I am given to believe Prime wrote the majority of that chapter. On Ballard, I did consider your comments from the PR, but I believe that the only two people who could state for certain that they never spoke again are Henderson and Ballard. This is one case where I believe Henderson is the best source. (In his latest book, he expanded on how he tried to bury the hatchet with no success). And moved the career stats into general. Hopefully that resolves your error! Thanks, Resolute 22:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
It's a while since I've been to FAC, but I have spent some time tidying this article, and I think it is now just about as ready I can get it. Most of the eyes that have looked over this article so far have been ones that are reasonably knowledgeable about cricket, so it could certainly do with a jargon check. As always, all comments and thoughts are eagerly anticipated! Harriastalk 14:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
File:Hewett_%26_Palairet.png: can you give full bibliographic details for the source?
File:Ranji_1897_page_053_L._C._H._Palairet's_drive_to_cover.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All done, although I'm not 100% sure on a couple of the captions. Harriastalk 17:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed all remaining caption punctuation issues. – Quadell(talk) 15:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I commented extensively at the PR, and had few concerns then or now. From a cricketing and sourcing viewpoint, this one is absolutely spot on, but I may have missed a little jargon here and there. But it certainly meets the criteria. Nice work, and it would be good to have a few more Somerset cricketers at FAC. Just a few last little points below which do not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still have a few reservations about ""placed him fifth amongst his peers". But perhaps it's just me.
"The strength of Palairet's off side strokes blunted the tactic, and helped him to score more effectively": Still not quite sure about this. What about "The strength of Palairet's off side strokes helped him to score effectively against this tactic". (And, as an aside, I still suspect, knowing CB Fry, that his comment may have been a little dig about leg-side play. But maybe I'm being uncharitable)
Changed as suggested. Harriastalk 12:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that when the comment about the "modern game" were removed, so was the mention that he favoured "lofted" shots. Perhaps that part is worth keeping as a point about his style. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added that bit back in. Harriastalk 12:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I also offered comments at the PR, and think this meets the high standards that have been established by our batch of cricket bio FAs. This will make another nice addition to that group. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brief comment. Surely "nought" or similar should replace the three instances of "zero". EddieHugh (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why. The correct expression would be a duck, but I'm not sure that is encyclopaedic, and zero is as accurate as anything else. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember reading or hearing "zero" used in relation to cricket, at least in the UK. EddieHugh (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Sarastro1 says, generally "a duck" would be used, but the sentence flow would be badly affected to wedge that in. I'll have a look, but I don't see any advantage to "nought" over "zero". Harriastalk 12:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This is a well-written article and meets the FA standards. I don't have any issue with the article, I kept an eye on the article since it was at GAN and PR. ZiaKhan 00:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are numerous small prose glitches in the "Personal life" section, which is the only one I have read so far.
Unwarranted use of mdashes in the first sentence. The enclosed phrase is a natural part of the sentence; commas are the appropriate punctuation here.
A colon, not a semicolon, should follow "two children"
No comma should follow "Henry Edward Hamilton"
"In addition to cricket, he also maintained..." The word "also" is redundant, given "In addition to..."
The words in quotes – "admits that..." etc – are presented as though they were Palairet's, which they are not. A correct format would be "a 1901 profile of Palairet in Baily's Magazine of Sports and Pastimes records that foxhunting "holds the first place in his heart." Or do a complete paraphrase, e.g. "...records that foxhunting was his primary sporting interest".
"He captained Devon either side of the First World War, from 1914 through until 1926, and was also president of the union from 1923 until 1932." You need to be clearer that captained Devon at golf, and that the "union" is the Devon County Golf Union – the lower case might mislead.
"He developed the idea of an inter-club team championship within Devon, and donated the trophy, which remains named the Palairet Trophy." Clunky, avoidable repetition of "trophy"
Not clear when Palairet served as the Earl of Devon'a land agent. The sentence begins "During the First World War..."
Unfortunately, I can't find a source that gives me a definitive answer. He certainly was in 1905, as well as during the First World War. The assumption would obviously be that he continued in the role throughout, but I have nothing to verify that, so I can't really be much clearer I'm afraid. Harriastalk 16:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The words "for whom he served as a land agent" can be deleted from this section, as you have mentioned his employment earlier in the article. Also the Earl of Devon has been linked earlier. See my further comment on the "Later county career" section. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Too many sentences in this short section begin "He..."
I have sorted this now, although I don't know how elegantly the prose reads? Harriastalk 12:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be mentioned in this section that Palairet's brother Richard (R.C.N.) also played for Somerset, though less successfully, alongside his brother.
That's quite a few issues for one short section, and there are likely to be similar problems in other parts of the text, so I don't think the article is ready for promotion just yet. I will review the remaining sections over the next day or so. Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review so far Brian. I'm unlikely to be able to do much on this until the weekend, but if you find the time to review the remaining sections before then, please feel free: a long list won't overwhelm me! Regards, Harriastalk 06:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may have already had it on your list, Brian, but if you could include a source review with your additional comments that'd be great. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll do the sources review. Instead of leaving a long list of prose quibbles, I am copyediting the article, and expect to leave a much shorter list of issues I can't resolve myself. Brianboulton (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments: I knew very little about Palairet before reading this article, and you are to be congratulated on finding out this much about him, in the absence of a full-length biography. Definitely a commendable research effort. However, I found the prose rather ragged at times – a bit surprising, this, given a GA review and several supports at FAC. The chief recurring problems, which I have mainly copyedited, were: beginning new paragraphs with pronouns; misuse of colons and confusion with semicolons; tendencies to "sportspeak" – for example, batsmen are not "propelled" towards certain totals. I can't guarantee that my copyedits have caught all these problems, and a final check might be useful. There are a few issues, listed below, that I need to raise with you:
Early life
Readers may wonder how someone who lived in Dorset and was educated in Derbyshire qualified "on the basis residence" to play for Somerset.
Indeed: especially as the quoted source does not actually mention it. In the absence of a source that specifically lists this (I'm sure there was one, but can I find it??) I have removed the bit about his qualification. If I find the relevant source, I'll add it back in with better explanation. Harriastalk 11:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
University and county cricketer
Another reviewer has raised the matter of "zero". This term is not part of cricket's idiom and should not be used, particularly in a potential featured article. "Nought" is the usual formal term: "a duck" is perhaps too informal for an encyclopedia (though I see you have used it twice). There are other formulations that can be used in appropriate circumstances, e.g. "out without scoring", but "zero" has to go (three usages all told).
"his first half-century" – I imagine you mean in first-class cricket.
Link Lord Hawke at first mention (he is linked in a later section)
The term "varsity match" is English public school slang, and shouldn't be used in an encyclopedia
"out for a duck" → "out without scoring" (see above)?
You say that Palairet's selections for the 1893 University Match were questioned, but don't say on what basis. Why were his selections controversial?
Leading amateur batsman
Perhaps you should explain that "Arthur Shrewsbury's England XI" was not a representative side
"including his brother" – if not before, this is the time when the brother, R.C.N. should be introduced by name.
"there was some suggestion that but for this he would likely have appeared for England against Australia that summer." Two points: "there was some suggestion" – was this contemporary press speculation, or was it the retrospective opinion of later commentators? Also: "he would likely have appeared for England". The word "likely" seems unnecessary, given that you are reporting a "suggestion" of something that might have happened.
I've tried to clarify this, and also weakened the claim slightly at the same time, how is it now? Harriastalk 16:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than using the passive form "there was some suggestion later", you can attribute to the source, thus: "Bailey's Magazine suggested that but for this..." etc Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1901, Palairet also scored big hundreds against Lancashire, 182 runs and an opening partnership of 225 with Braund; and Sussex, 194 runs and an opening partnership of 258 with Talbot Lewis." This is almost impossible to decipher, and needs to be rewritten as something more comprehensible. Note: "big hundreds" is journalistic cricketspeak and shouldn't appear in an encyclopedia.
I've cut this back a fair bit, how is it? Harriastalk 16:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but I have simplified it even more, and also copyedited the final sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Later county career
I would specify "Bath cricket festival" (with lower case f) rather than "Bath Festival", which term usually means the Bath International Music Festival
"The cricket historian David Foot describes 1904 and the subsequent few seasons as undistinguished" - undistinguished for whom: Palairet individually? Somerset collectively? The whole of cricket? Please clarify.
You mention en passant "his work as a land agent for the Earl of Devon". It would be useful to know when this began - I had been wondering for some time how Palairet earned his living, given that he played as an amateur.
From what I read, I imagine that this was one of those amenable jobs that tended to fall to well-connected sportsmen. In the absence of anything more detailed you can't really add to it – though I recommend you change "focussing on" to "to concentrate on". Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You include a summary of his career batting statistics – why not his bowling? He took 143 wickets, after all.
Style and technique
"Often considered the benchmark..." Considered by whom?
By a vast number of later commentators on cricket: should I clarify this more? Harriastalk 16:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Insert "by commentators to be" before "the benchmark" Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...a key factor in his not developing such a range of leg side shots." Reads very clumsily. Perhaps "a key factor in limiting his range of leg side shots.
"Although considered a stylish batsman, David Foot describes Palairet..." David Foot was considered a stylish batsman?
The sentences about his Harlequin cap and his aloofness are not really part of "style and technique", and could perhaps be inserted elsewhere in the article.
I have already commented on the Personal life section. One further point: there is very little in the article about Palairet's activities outside cricket, no doubt reflecting the paucity of sources. I did find that he played football for the Corinthians, a well-known and high-class amateur side at the turn of the 20th century (they once beat Manchester United 11–3). He was also a competent long-distance runner in his Oxford days, and represented the university in the three miles event. I can give you sources for these snippets.
Thanks for all your copyediting work on the article: I'll try and learn from my mistakes for future articles! Just to quickly respond to this point: the end of the University and county cricketer section mentions that he played for Corinthians, and that he ran the three mile race already: do your sources go into any more depth worth mentioning? Harriastalk 18:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, I overlooked that you already had this information. My source does not really give anything more than you have. In a long chapter in his autobiography on football and the Corinthians, C.B. Fry mentions dozens of names of players – but not Palairet, who may not have played many matches. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will add a sources review when the above points are answered. Please ping when you're through. Brianboulton (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias, it's been almost a week since these comments were raised. The review as a whole has been open almost six weeks and needs to conclude so pls address as a matter of urgency. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, I'm just working on some of it at the moment. I have a baby daughter, so I'm trying to steal time where I can, but it is in short supply. I don't offer this as an excuse, merely a reason, and if the time comes to close this, don't worry about having to do so. If it comes to that, I'll just work on the article and then renominate. Harriastalk 13:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite understand, we're all volunteers and RL has to come first. For future reference, if you're unable to work on a nomination for a while then you can always leave a quick note to that effect, if feasible. Anyway, let's see how you go over the next couple of days... Best, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll be honest, I somewhat underestimated fatherhood! I kept thinking I'd have a few minutes to work on a few points, and then just didn't! But yes, I'll see what I can do over the weekend: I have no real free time in the working week. Harriastalk 13:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have dealt with a number of the points, and some are still left to do. I have marked those above, more as an indicator to me than anything else. Brianboulton, I have left a few comments on some of your points that I would appreciate further guidance on if possible. Hopefully I will get some more work done on this tomorrow. My thanks for your help. Harriastalk 16:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton, I think I have now completed each of the points you have raised, though there are a couple of points on which I am unsure if I have truly improved the article with my change! I look forward to your further comments and sources review. Harriastalk 12:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have adequately answered my points, except that the non-representative nature of "Arthur Shrewsbury's XI" still needs to clarified. Leaning to support now; I will try to do the sources review tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added a footnote at the end of the sentence: is that a bit too far removed? Harriastalk 07:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In general, sources look of appropriately high quality and reliability. See below for one at which I have raised an eyebrow.
Limited spotchecking reveals no apparent propblems with copyvio.
I have added OCLC numbers for the pre-ISBN books. For future reference, these numbers can generally be found by searching the Worldcat site. The "cite book" template has an "oclc= " field.
Ref 29 should be in short citation form, to be consistent with 69 and 73
Ref 78 – the eyebrow-raiser. Is there any reason for choosing an obscure Jamaican local newspaper as your source for the fact, widely acknowledged in all the main cricketing histories, that the 1902 Australians were one of the strongest teams to visit these shores?
Ref 93 needs page numbers for the Palairet photos - or at least for one or two, as examples.
Ref 101 is a dead link
These should be relatively straightforward to fix. Congratulations on the baby daughter, by the way, and I hope there are not too many sleepless nights. Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have tidied the references as requested, and removed the dead link altogether, all it supported was the fact that Palairet donated the trophy itself. I can't find another reference for this at the moment, but given that it doesn't seem a highly contentious point, I'm not sure if it is necessary to remove that information? Ref 78: it is a strange one, isn't it! I fear this was me being lazy. I knew that the 1902 team was considered very strong, and I knew it was mentioned in a number of my books, but rather than hunt through them for a solid reference, I Googled it – busted. My cricket books are currently inaccessible, but I'll try to delve out a stronger cricketing reference for this in the next few days. Harriastalk 21:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure you can be trusted to replace 78 with something more conventional. I don't think the information about the trophy is important enough to warrant searching for a source, and I'd be inclined to leave it out, as you have now. I believe the article is now in good shape, and am pleased to add my support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notes -- Harrias, if you haven't been to FAC for a while (a belated welcome back in that case!) then you may or may not be aware of Ucucha's handy duplicate link checker. I found a few instances with it, some of which may be justified if there's a lot of space between first and subsequent links, but pls review any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that: I've added it to my toolbox! I've removed a number of duplicated links thanks to it, though I have left a couple in place that I feel are justified. Harriastalk 15:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
We are nominating this for featured article because… we think it meets the criteria. Homer Davenport's cartoons in the 1896, 1900, and 1904 presidential races played were influential, affecting how people perceived the candidates. But that was just one facet of his life, as his interest in animals, especially his importation of Arabian horses in 1906 following an epic journey in the Middle East, may be an even greater legacy. He died young after a life not entirely happy, but his name lives on in political cartooning and the world of horses. Enjoy. Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The references really need to be cleaned up. I found "pp." statements with a single page, hyphens and en-dashes intermixed for page numbers, capital "P." instead of "p.", references giving pages without "p." at all, miscellaneous spacing issues, two authors separated by "and" in one instance and "&" in another, etc.
We'll start taking a whack at that, also have no objection if you want to dive in. Personally, my eyesight is poor and it is extremely difficult for me to spot spacing issues, so anyone who can help there is most welcome to do so! --Montanabw
Quadell, I did a run through of the p and pp issue, I THINK I got them all, but if not, can you possibly either just tweak those or point me to the problem ones? I found only one spacing issue... like I say, my eyesight sucks and I rely heavily on word searches... --Montanabw
On the & issue, I think the only place I see this is Huot & Powers in the citations?? Are there others?? If only that source, I shall defer to Wehwalt, as that's his book. --Montanabw
Yes, I can help with reference formatting. I actually enjoy that sort of thing, but I don't usually make such edits to FACs unless I'm invited to do so. I'll go through it in the next few days. – Quadell(talk) 20:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consider yourself invited! Wikignoming is always helpful from my end! Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 21:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, cool. I've standardized the references as well as I can. There are only two possible issues left. (I did not fix them, since I wasn't sure how you wanted them handled.) First, the "Huot & Powers" reference uses an asterisk [late edit: ampersand! Doh!] for multiple authors, while the "Carver, Charles and Jeanne" references spells out the word "and". Second, different references format years and dates differently. (Compare "Wells, November 1905, p. 416" with "Fowler, J.A. (May, 1905)...", or "Retrieved 2013-10-13" with "Retrieved September 7, 2012".) – Quadell(talk) 21:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll clean up the access date formatting. I'll just put "and" with Huot and Powers. On the other, I don't think we really have to fix that IMHO, as the differences there is one uses a template at the cite and presents a full citation, while the other references a book listed down in the sources section and is thus a short form citation. But if that is still an issue we can discuss? --Montanabw
In my opinion, all reference-formatting issues have been resolved. (Some FAC reviewers may be more picky, however.) – Quadell(talk) 20:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it complies with our MoS to have a "See also" link to a section in an article, with an em-dash in the link, the way it is done here. (I could be wrong about this...)
Can you check the MOS? If you are correct, we'll gladly change it. As it sits, though, it is a help to the reader to have the piped link, so let us know if it's must the em-dash that troubles you or how we can better format the piped link. --Montanabw
It seems I was thinking of the MoS on disambiguation pages. Nothing in the MoS specifically discourages links to sections of articles in "See also" sections, nor can I find suggestions on how to do so. Spaced em-dashes are generally frowned upon, though. I suspect there is a cleaner way to link to this, but I'm not sure what it would be. Unless someone comes up with a specific suggestion, though, that's not really actionable. – Quadell(talk) 20:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you use the "city, state" wording, the state is a parenthetic. It therefore requires a comma after. (See Wikipedia:Basic copyediting#Parenthetical comma.) Several such errors are in the "1897–1901" and "Legacy" sections, and possibly other sections as well.
I'm slightly confused, can you just demonstrate what you mean? --Montanabw
In that (above confusion), I don't see the need for a comma after Silverton, Oregon in the Legacy section, as that would be illogical form. I'm doing it anyway, but it looks positively bizarre to me, I hate comma splices and it now looks like one. I think I shall wait on hunting down the others until wehwalt takes a peek at this. --Montanabw
(ec) Sure. Consider "Davenport was sent to Carson City, Nevada to cover the heavyweight championship". "Nevada" is functioning grammatically as a parenthetic, giving more info about "Carson City", so it needs commas both before and after ("Davenport was sent to Carson City, Nevada, to cover the heavyweight championship"). It looks odd to many writers, I know, but most style guides (including our own) require it. The same goes for "Davenport went to Asbury Park, New Jersey[comma needed] to watch Corbett", "Silverton, Oregon[comma needed] gives tribute to Davenport", etc. If you like, I'll fix them when I come to them as I do a more full review. – Quadell(talk) 20:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do see the logic. Still looks weird, but go ahead and fix them. I get it ;-) --Montanabw
While on the subject of commas, most of the article uses the serial comma, but a few places omit it. (The infobox lists his children as "Homer Jr., Mildred and Gloria", and the "Personal life and other interests" section ends a list with "...Buffalo Bill Cody, Frederick Remington and the Florodora girls".) Should I assume the article should use the serial comma throughout? – Quadell(talk) 21:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so, yes, eats, shoots, and leaves! --Montanabw
I'm really not a fan of the multiple galleries of large editorial cartoons interspersed through the article, for several reasons. They have to be larger than MoS-recommended image sizes to be recognizable, and many still can't be appreciated without clicking to see full resolution. The four-wide galleries look awkward when the window size is not what you would expect. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images recommends "Rather than including an image gallery on an article, which could add significantly to the download size, consider creating a gallery/category on the Wikimedia Commons instead" (which of course already exists). Now having said all that, I'm not sure I'm right; I understand that Davenport's primary importance lies in these cartoons, and if the majority of commenters here feel the galleries are warranted, I won't insist. I'll just opine that I think the article would be better with a few select cartoons in appropriate sections, and a link to the rest on Commons.
Hi, Quadell, we already considered this issue during an informal peer review, here, and if you'd like to skim my answers there, it will probably save us all some time - in short, I did an extensive review of art articles that are FA class before creating these. This type of small gallery with selected images is used in other FAs about artists, and given that Davenport has hundreds of cartoons (we have quite a few more at commons), we are barely scratching the surface here. --Montanabw
Thank you for the link. I certainly agree the format you use is clearly better than the ones used at Adolfo Farsari or, worse, John Michael Wright. I still feel that this article would be improved by removing the galleries and including only as many images as will fit with the flow of the text (covering the works more fully, perhaps, at something like List of works by Homer Davenport or somesuch). This should not, however, be read as an actionable issue that is required before I will support, but only as one opinion to weigh along with those of other reviewers. – Quadell(talk) 20:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We'll let it sit for now, then and thank you for your kind words about our formatting. We originally had it set up the way you suggest, but to make the images clear enough for the article required the "upright" parameter and we wound up with absolutely horrid formatting and insufficient images. This gallery question was very carefully considered, though we are open to further discussion on the details. As for a list, given that he was a cartoonist, we have a problem of abundance... lol! --Montanabw
Now that I have read the entire article, I concede that it is difficult to imagine the article functioning as well without the diverse array of cartoons as described in the text. Since I don't see any better way to arrange the images, I think I'll have to agree that the galleries are appropriate. – Quadell(talk) 20:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to fully review the article later on. – Quadell(talk) 16:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing, Quadell, I have a few comments and replies above. We are glad to discuss any issues with you. Montanabw(talk) 20:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you also. I think most of what is being seen is fallout from having two people working on different parts of the article. I looked at the p. and pp. I think we are OK. I agree also on the galleries with Montanabw.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, two people, one of whom (moi) refuses to get bifocals and has depended heavily on wikignomes for every FAC I've ever had! (#busted!) Montanabw(talk) 19:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All the necessary, actionable items above have been addressed. A full review follows.
This article is quite a strong candidate. The lead is excellent, and the prose is quite vivid. I've identified the following issues. – Quadell(talk) 20:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overlinking: Arabian Horse Association is linked twice in the lead. William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896 is linked twice in the "1896 election and Mark Hanna" section. Middle East is linked in both "1901–1912" and "Desert journey". Purebred is linked in both "1901–1912" and "Personal life and other interests". (In addition, both The Oregonian and William Jennings Bryan are linked twice, but these are in distant sections, and I could imagine the re-linking being useful.) Additionally, consider whether the link to hay is useful to the reader. And I suspect that the link to the disambiguation page Asil is not useful. (The word "asil" links to Al Khamsa in one instance, and to Asil in another.) – Quadell(talk) 20:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed or rephrased except for hay, which, inevitably, some other reviewer will insist on wikilinking, plus people not into horses confuse it with straw, LOL. --MTBW
In my opinion "and then population 300" would be clearer as "and then with a population of 300"
Tweaked, see if my rephrasing is acceptable --MTBW
Linking "Portland" might help clarify which Portland. (Though I admit, it would have to have quite a famous community band to have travelled to the other Portland, not to mention the other other Portland.)
Swapped later link to link at first use. --MTBW
I think a better verb than "did" could be found for "impressed by doodles that Davenport did while waiting".
Fixed --MTBW
I have nothing against semicolons, but the second paragraph in "West Coast years" uses them in three sentences in a row. That's a bit much for "engaging" prose "of a professional standard". (I personally find the seven semicolons in the first five paragraphs of "1896 election and Mark Hanna" distracting as well, but that could just be me.)
Killed one of the three and did a little rephrasing in the 1896 section, tossed a few, kept the rest. (Wehwalt, revert me if that was not properly done) Good enough? --MTBW
This (along with all issues raised above) is fine now. – Quadell(talk) 15:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is "public prejudice against the Democrats" a fair way to characterize it? It sounds POV to me.
Wehwalt: This is your source, can you take this one? (FYI, I suspect it is the view of the source material and being historical, is a legitimate factor, but this one is Wehwalt's call) -_MTBW
I think it's a matter of historical fact. The Panic had started in 1893, Cleveland's response (repealing the Sherman Silver Purchase Act) was deemed inadequate, and the Democrats lost both houses of Congress in the 1894 elections. There were even Republican congressmen in Kentucky and North Carolina, and Populist ones further South. There was popular prejudice against the Democrats. People were starving, and they were blamed.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not comfortable calling opposition to a political party "prejudice" here. To give a parallel example from just this week, I am a tad disheartened that my favorite candidate was not elected to city council, and I may honestly believe that my fellow citizens are prejudiced against third-party candidates. I might say so to my friends. But I wouldn't expect such a statement to be considered NPOV in a featured article. – Quadell(talk) 15:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased by a couple of people.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this sentence: "In 1905 and afterwards, Davenport traveled on the Chatauqua lecture circuit, sketching on stage, and gave engaging talks." This is really minor, but since the talk were a part of the lecture circuit, the sentence would be improved with a rewording. (If I say "He did A, doing B, and did C", one would assume that B is a part of A but C is not.)
Suggested rephrasing?? (given that someone inevitably will argue the other direction if we reword too dramatically)? --MTBW
Either "In 1905 and afterwards, Davenport traveled on the Chatauqua lecture circuit, sketching on stage and giving engaging talks" or "In 1905 and afterwards, Davenport traveled on the Chatauqua lecture circuit where he sketched on stage and gave engaging talks" would work fine. – Quadell(talk) 15:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've rephrased. I don't think it is coming through as clearly as I might have hoped that the sketching was part of the talk, so I've taken a shot at it in my own words, see what you think.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Davenport's son is referred to in the infobox as "Homer Jr.", with no comma. The footnote calls him "Homer, Jr.", with a comma. The article body only ever calls him "Homer Clyde", implying he was not a junior (since his father was Homer Calvin). There should be a clear and consistent way to refer to the boy.
Fixed to Homer Clyde throughout. --MTBW
There seems to be a typo in "...there are also some preservation breeders whose horses have bloodlines remain exclusively descended...".
rephrased to "...have bloodlines that are entirely descended from ..." does that work better? --MTBW
Is there a typo in this? "Davenport's efforts... allowed the Arabian horse in America to be bred with authentic type and pure bloodlines." I don't know what "authentic type" is in this sentence. (This could be due to my ignorance of horse-breeding terms.) I am also confused by the claim that the hores Haleb "was also crossed on Morgan and Standardbred mares". Is that a typo, or a phrasing I'm not familiar with?
Clarified "authentic Arabian type" and linked "type" to our horse glossary. On the other, which word? Crossed? Wikilinked that to crossbreeding. Does that clarify? --MTBW
Is a horse "crossed on" another horse? (I know very little about horse breeding, but the preposition sounds odd to me.) – Quadell(talk) 15:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One breed of horse is crossed on another breed of horse to create a crossbred. Ditto dogs (see, e.g. Designer crossbred) I rephrased to "crossed with," which is slightly more precise. --MTBW
Regarding footnote [b], why don't the other horses Davenport imported into America, such as Haleb and Wadduda, have their names preceded by asterisks?
Oops! Will fix that! Also moved endnote to Wadduda, the first time the asterisk is used. --MTBW
I think these commas are doing too much confusing work in this sentence: "They had three children, two daughters, Mildred, born 1899, Gloria Ward, born 1904, and a son, Homer Clyde, born 1896." The sense is clear in context, but the grammar is confusing.
restructured and re-punctuated, better now? --MTBW
This is not a requirement, but consider making the parenthetical aside regarding Zadah into a footnote.
OK, made it an endnote, easy enough (Wehwalt, revert me if you disagree on this, not a big deal to me, either)--MTBW
I think this sentence could be improved: "Davenport's cartoons have had a lasting impact on the public image of Mark Hanna, and how he is remembered." (The final clause doesn't clearly fit in anywhere.) My impulse would be this: "Davenport's cartoons have had a lasting impact on the public image of Mark Hanna, both on how he was perceived at the time and on how he is remembered today." What do you think? Too flowery?
OK, used your phrasing (Wehwalt, revert or discuss if that doesn't work for you, no issue for me either way) --MTBW
I look forward to your replies. – Quadell(talk) 20:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is now resolved, except for "prejudice", "sketching on stage", and perhaps "crossed on". – Quadell(talk) 15:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have rephrased the "prejudice" angle.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(End of comments by Quadell)
Support. This article is truly among the best Wikipedia has to offer, and it fulfills all our FA criteria. – Quadell(talk) 21:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patient work with us.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportLeaning to support: My prose concerns were largely addressed in the peer review. I haven't read the article through at FAC yet, though I will do so. In the meantime, here are a few non-prose concerns:
The first and third cartoon galleries have been sized reasonably, the middle one seems unnecessarily large and thus a bit "shouty". Is there a reason why this can't be reduced to the same size as the other two?
Hmmm. All of them appear exactly the same size in my browser, all are set at 250px, I am not opposed to fixing this, but as it might be a browser issue, is there any markup syntax for galleries akin go the "upright" parameter for individual images that we can use to standardize all three galleries across all browsers and prefs settings? --MTBW "Follow up': When I alter the size in that second section (I went from 250 to 240 as an experiment), the images reload and shrink for a second, then re-reload to exactly the same size as before in my browser. If they are way bigger in yours than the other two galleries, we may have one wonky image or something. We may need someone who knows markup syntax to help here. Any nominations for someone we can call upon here? --MTBW
You could ask User:Ruhrfisch, who has helped me with image issues in the past and is generally obliging. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very odd. My laptop at home (running Chrome on Windows 8) shows the images in the middle gallery as much larger than the others. But my desktop at work (running Chrome on Windows 7) shows all images at about the same sizes. – Quadell(talk) 16:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At present, on my display, the first two galleries are showing giant-size, while the third is normally sized. What is the position on other displays, e.g. MTBW and Wehwalt? It may be the fault of my browser – but the comment, above, from Quadell is a bit disturbing. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On my laptop (Mac running Safari) I get four images that precisely fill the width of a standard screen. What's weird, though, is that when I've played with size, the first set won't resize down, they load smaller, then instantly pop back up large, the second and third sets will resize, but too dramatically so... I'm also using monobook skin, would that be a factor? I've pinged ruhrfisch, hope he can figure it out. Montanabw(talk) 23:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ampersands in citations: I think this point was raised by an earlier reviewer, but he used the word "asterisk" and I think the point got lost. There are inconsistencies in the citations between, for example, "Huot and Powers" and "Haskins, W. R., Taube, M. S., & Davenport, H." which ought to be regularised. On balance I prefer "and" to the ampersand.
We shall search and (&) destroy all ampersands! (If we miss any, feel free to stomp them yourselves! LOL! (However, ""Arabian Horse History & Heritage" IS the title of that article, so do we tweak that one or not??) --MTBW "Fixed' I think and if not, tell me or feel free to fix.
If it is part of a formal name or title. the ampersand should stay. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Publisher locations: Missing in the cases of Conn 1972, Davenport 1949, Edwards 1973, Vogt 2000. There are inconsistencies between "New York" and "NYC"
Not all books list publication location, but I shall check worldcat and see if there is help there. --MTBW Follow up:Fixed, if not, ping me and shall tweak.
Davenport 1910 still has "NYC" rather than "New York". Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
State name abbreviations in sources: For the sake of non-American readers it would be better if these were fully spelt out. "Oh", "Wash", "Kan" and "Wis", for example, are not informative to most non-Americans. Some of them don't appear to accord with the official abbreviation.
Good point, will fix. --MTBW Follow up: I believe I got them all? If not, ping me and shall tweak. Presumed Boston, New York did not require more (neither would London, Paris, Hong Kong, etc...) --MTBW
Several state abbreviations (Oh, Wash, Cal) are still there, and should be fixed. I'm just doing my final readthrough before the expected upgrade to support. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed that now. I've delinked New York, Boston, Baltimore, and done the standard postal abbreviations for the others.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, other than the gallery sizing problem (which is some sort of bug, I think, and I've pinged Ruhrfisch about it), have we now addressed all of your other concerns? Montanabw(talk) 22:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have indeed addressed my concerns (the image size problem is a separate matter unrelated to the issue of support). I am about two-thirds-way through a final reading of the article, and hope to finish before I go to bed tonight (it's 11.30 pm here as I write). Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Looking forward to the rest. Montanabw(talk) 23:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have upgraded to support, with a few final quibbles:
The format "Dr. Russell Trall" is unfortunate. Is he really worth a redlink? Whether or not he is, you should drop the title
OK, delinked and dropped. Unless we learn more about him, you are probably right. --MTBW
An AmEng query: You have "help Timothy clerk at the store", and on the next line "required Homer to milk the cows". To my mind, "help Timothy to clerk at the store" would be more natural, certainly more formal, and would make the phrases consistent. What is the AmEng angle on this?
I'd say in AmEng it's six one way and a half=dozen the other. "to help to clerk" sounds clunky to me. --MTBW
"Desert journey" para 4: Over-repetition of "Sultan" – the odd synonym ("ruler", perhaps) could be used.
FIXED --MTBW
"he died there two weeks later on May 2, 1912": Does "there" refer specifically to Mrs Cochran's apartment, or to New York generally?
The apartment. I will clarify. I wonder if she saw it coming?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of images and all check out except for two. And those two are fine as far as licensing, just some minor points. Therefore I won't list all the images in the article here, just those two:
I flagged it as OK to go, but the tool wouldn't move it. I'm not sure if there is a simple way to do this or if the bot will move it now? --MTBW Follow up: I got it moved, manually, and renamed the file to something more descriptive. Anything else needed there? --MTBW
Not sure what you mean by "standardized": What is missing or wrong? (Glad to fix, but not sure what you are trying to tell us here). --MTBW Follow up: Never mind, I figured out the template. Maybe next time, instead of "standardize with" just say "add template foo to the image," eh? ;-) --MTBW
Otherwise, rest of image review checks out okay. Please comment, below, after above two minor issues are addressed, and I'll revisit. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK Cirt, I think I got it. Check it out, feel free to make any minor tweaks if needed. Montanabw(talk) 19:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Looks much better, thanks for being so responsive. :) Image review complete. Everything checks out alright now. — Cirt (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Random Source Check - Ref 64. confirms Davenport left his office in a "highly nervous state". Ref 79. confirms that the best war mares were not for sale at any price. Ref 104. confirms he had three children. Ref 121. confirms definition of CMK. These were all randomly picked, and were all completely accurate. (Credit to Gen. Quon for some of my review wording here.) Done. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the page on a PC running Windows 7 with Internet Explorer 10 (1st gallery was 307 pixels tall, 2nd gallery 327 px tall, and the 3rd was 250 px tall), Google Chrome (all images the same height), Mozilla Firefox (304 px, 324 px, and 250 px tall). I also looked at the page with Apple Safari on an iPad and, while all the images appeared to be the same height, the first two galleries wrapped (3 images across, with the 4th below). I tried pasting the code for the 1st line of the third gallery as the first line for the 1st and 2nd galleries, and also tried making sure the spacing and caption lengths were consistent, but nothing worked. The next thing I would try is Template:Gallery instead of <gallery> Ruhrfisch><>°° 04:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to have done it, although please feel free to play with it. Thank you for your expert help..--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I just did a quick check with Firefox, Chrome and IE and all three galleries are now the same height. One thing that is often an issue is the need to bypass your cache, as the old version (especially with images) is often stored and re-loaded by browsers to reduce server calls. The one image has a caption in it - , which is illegible at resolutions used in the article and is redundant to the caption used in the article. If that caption were cropped out, the image itself would display a bit larger. I am really not an expert, but glad my feeble efforts worked. Ruhrfisch><>°° 13:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm delighted to say that the solution works for me, too – all galleries showing at the same reasonable size. So the Ruhrfisch touch still has the power. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yay Ruhrfisch! You rock, man! Montanabw(talk) 21:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I tried tweaking the first gallery, making the first image narrower and the third image wider, but it did not work (on my monitor at least). Ruhrfisch><>°° 18:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Threaded discussion about pull-quotes moved to talk page by Cirt. — Cirt (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). Well organized, excellent structure throughout. Incredible attention to detail. Impressive and meticulous sourcing standards. Great contribution to the field of satire, that is, both the article itself and the individual, of course. I only wonder what Homer Davenport would have thought of the U.S. Supreme Court case, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell? — Cirt (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support. I suspect, as for the case, he would have had some interesting drawings.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't "the San Francisco Examiner" really "The San Francisco Examiner"?
"New York Journal American" ->"New York Journal-American".
Both papers done.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" In this period" - you previously mentioned Christmas, was it just a seasonal thing?
Developmental. Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"1870–1871" (and others, including section headings) see WP:YEAR.
I read it, but I don't think it's universally, or even that widely followed. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt's I'm staying out of that one, youse guyz can sort that out. That said, just personally I'm not fond of "1870-71" as an alternative in a heading title, but I won't quibble. JMO. But what did you have in mind? Unclear if your concern is the four-digit dates only, or other things? Montanabw(talk) 05:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have been clearer, and per User:Eric Corbett's recent episode, while you're not fond of reducing the range in characters, that's what our MOS says. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Far be it for us to question the great one! (snark) I'll tweak to remove the hyphens and replace them with "to" in the section headers, tweak the photo caption per MOS--MTBW
Love to know where that snuck into the MOS as every TFA blurb on a bio is noncompliant.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Maybe we need to edit the MOS (/snark) --MTBW
"Following his mother's death, both of Davenport's grandmothers helped raise him,[7] but Homer and his father moved to Silverton when the boy was seven years old..." might just be me but so many family relations in a few words.... any chance of a reword?
Split and somewhat rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"first jobs were not successful. His first position" repetitive "first".
Initialized.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You link "horse liniment" and "jockey" but not "linseed oil", seems strange to me.
" lest he be plunged into despair." this may well be true but it's hardly encyclopaedic writing, it could be a quote…?
It's paraphrasing a letter from Davenport to one of the Geer relatives and is not a quote but I am away from home until Saturday.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll defer to Wehwalt on this one unless I'm struck with inspiration, he has the source material--Montanabw Reworded, OK with both TRM and Wehwalt?? Montanabw(talk) 06:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Took that out, reworded, different punctuation. Better? Montanabw(talk) 05:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" to wed him" to marry him?
Yes, rephrased to "for the wedding" (Wehwalt: your source - is that correct?) Montanabw(talk) 05:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a definite implication that she went there to woo and win him, so to speak. I've rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's half-way, if it's helpful I'll continue once I get the chance, please let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful, thanks, look forward to your additional comments! Montanabw(talk) 05:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Part deux:
" ran a few times" doesn't seem particularly encyclopaedic to me.
Similarly "A few days after..."
I think the word "few" is sufficiently formal.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can tolerate it, it's still vague and non-encyclopedic however. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure source material allows more specificity, or, sometimes the opposite problem is TMI to be useful. But Wehwalt may be able to explain reasons, it's his sources, I did some minor rephrasing, though --MTBW
I'll check against sources when I'm home Sunday. The despair thing too.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"the following February" potentially lost track of what year we're in, three paras into this section.
Tweaked --MTBW
"and his boss" is "boss" usually found in an encyclopaedia?
Yes, and in the thesaurus too! (grin) Particularly where we are talking cartooning. "Employer" sounds so boring... ;-) We like a little sparkle--MTBW
"the prodding of U.S. Senator" has tone issues for me.
Very common in US English, "to prod the government into action" is actually the example provided in my thesaurus. --MTBW
Ok, it's euphemistic prodding which means it may not be clear to all readers, but it's nothing that I'd fall on my sword for... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"R-NY" no idea what that means, I'd guess at Republican for New York, but to a non-expert it's jargon.
Good point, will fix --MTBW
"Cartoons." [51]" remove space before ref.
FIXED --MTBW
"pounded a drumbeat for war" again, not an encyclopaedic tone.
Used in two prior FA's I've done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hearst's newspapers did read like tabloids at times, actually. And Wehwalt really likes that phrase. Can't we just keep it, please? --MTBW
I should add that this is what they were doing, not an exaggeration. While the famous "you supply the photographs, I'll supply the war" telegram is a bit dubious, Hearst was using his newspapers to push for public and political pressure for war with Spain. In other words, they were pounding a drumbeat for war with Spain. What is unclear to the reader here? And the reason why they read like tabloids is because they were. This is one of those times you just run with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In 1905, in 1906, in 1905.. seems a little odd.
Throughout or just in one spot? Clarify? (If throughout, it is standard usage...) --MTBW
I just meant the out-of-order chronology. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I see. FIXED. --MTBW
"In 1905 and afterwards" -> From 1905?
Rephrased, better? --MTBW
"Haleb, the "Pride of the Desert," imported to America by Davenport in 1906." no period required.
Fixed. --MTBW
What is the asterisk in a horse's title? If it's part of their name then it should be included in the link, if it's not, then it should be explained.
Means it's an import to the USA, not foaled here. See the endnote after *Wadduda. But (Big sigh) we had it by *Abu Zeyd, but someone else missed that endnote and wanted us to put it with the first instance. Shall we insert it all three times it's used with each horse? I'll do whatever you need here. --MTBW
I think it'd be best to use it each time since it's only thrice. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm up for that, does anyone know how to do the {{efn|info here}} syntax so the same endnote appears each time without having three identical endnotes at the bottom? Montanabw(talk) 22:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed that, I think, using the "name=" parameter within the {{efn}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Find it a little odd that "hay" is linked, as is "mare", but not "stallion". Worth a run through trying to check that the horse jargon is linked first time and no assumptions are made.
Will fix, thought I had. Understood. --MTBW Fixed let me know if more horse jargon jumps out at you. --MTBW
"newly–imported" hyphen, not en-dash.
Fixed. --MTBW
"The Davenport farm in Morris Plains, NJ, circa 1901–1905" ->"The Davenport farm in Morris Plains, New Jersey, circa 1901–05"
Done --MTBW
"pull his life together " not encyclopedic.
The English language is very rich, and phrases like that are appropriate English. Better than spending twice the number of words expressing the thought half as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but how does this translate into all versions of English? It's not plain English. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. To me it is. In colloquial terms, we might now say "got his shit together," but that's even less encyclopedic! (LOL!) Wehwalt has the source material, and I am not sure we can say he was "cured of depression" or anything like that without venturing into OR or SYNTH land; but clearly, Davenport became severely depressed during the divorce, went to California, stopped making any money for a while, then managed to "pull it together" enough to start cartooning again. I truly cannot think of a better way to phrase it, but I'm open to ideas. --MTBW
Outside comment. I do understand why TRM might see the idiom as less formal than the surrounding text. But I can't think of a good substitute. ("Recover" doesn't quite suffice.) It does seem like a very minor issue to me. – Quadell(talk) 12:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look at the source, though I don't expect much of a revelation (when I get home and over jet lag) but again, this is one of those circumstances where you just go with the English language. I am inclined to let it stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all good with going with the English language but some phrasing just seems to be non-encyclopedic to me. I just can't imagine the Encyclopedia Britannica using the term "pull his life together", instead I would have expected a rephrase into more formal language. But as above, it's not something I'm going to insist upon (nor could I), it's just something that sticks out as odd to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
US English is odd, I suppose. If you have any ideas for "more formal" English that doesn't go into SYNTH territory and conveys the proper nuance, feel free to propose. Montanabw(talk) 22:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been a 5-star pedant here, and while I'm still mildly bothered by the odd prose issue (as noted above), I also accept that less is more, many times I've read dull prose and thought "ok, it's encyclopaedic, but yawn", and in this case I'm reading it as "ok, it's great prose, but not encyclopaedic". I'd prefer the latter to the former, so I haven't really a leg to stand on. Support a nice article, well written, nicely illustrated, and actually nice to work with nominators who are accommodating to pedantic review comments. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I look for people to be picky. That's what reviewers are for, and you've done your job well. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you TRM. Your vote of confidence is much appreciated. Montanabw(talk) 02:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
I felt the lead/infobox could stand a little tweaking and edited accordingly.
Oddly, the dablink checker revealed one instance, Asil, but in the article it didn't appear the page was linked after all (just a pipe)...
OK. Anything we need to do? Thanks for looking at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well probably not, I was more curious as to whether you had any thoughts on this phantom dablink -- have you seen it before (or have I missed something obvious)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks "phantom" to me and I don't want to change the language right there as I'm not expert on Arabian horses. Let me see if I can ping Montanabw.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not suggesting you should change anything, was just interested in a reality check as I've never seen this tool make an error. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nor I, actually.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry to be late to the party here. Asil was originally linked to the dab page which contains the simple definition (means "pure"), and when the dab issue came up somewhere in our FAC prep, I changed that and directed it to an article that explains what the word means in better context, Al Khamsa. Davenport actually used the word "chubby" in his book, but I have never seen that word used by anyone other than Davenport. May be that the dablinkchecker has a long memory. Montanabw(talk) 02:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that's it... Anyway, not something to hold up promotion -- now you've got this one out of the way, hope to see you chaps tackling Thomas Nast some time... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This former royal castle was once used to imprison the Duke of Bourbon, and came close to getting Mary, Queen of Scots too, but ended its days being quarried for stone. Now, the waters of the Trent overflow its towers, as was prophesied. Thanks to Hchc2009, Dank, Nev1 and Anotherclown for improving this article to Milhist A-class before it came here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). I agree with quality of prose in assessment by Dank (talk·contribs), above. I would add in particular I like the style used for the referencing and citation sections. In addition, the overall structure is organized well, and the writing quality is succinct and eminently readable for our viewers. — Cirt (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome, — Cirt (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support from a literature perspective. It uses the available sources on this castle comprehensively. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for support and for your help in bringing this up to standard Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having looked at the article again, and being involved with the A-class process, I'm happy to support the article. As Hchc2009 says, it is comprehensive and on top of that, it is well structured and well written. Nev1 (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nev1, I appreciated your help preparing this for FAC Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because it is ready. Fakih is, to put it lightly, pretty much forgotten in most histories of Indonesia that I've read. He gets more mention as the chairman of Muhammadiyah - a position he held for less than a week before his death. Though the article is somewhat short, I believe it is comprehensive. It is easily the best English-language biography of this subject available. This received a PR from Wehwalt, Sarastro1, and User:SchroCat. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article is good. Hanamanteo (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I commented at length at the PR, where my minor concerns were addressed. I think this meets the criteria comfortably, and matches Crisco's usual high standards. The prose is good, and I think the context is set very nicely. I cannot comment on how comprehensive or otherwise it is, nor on the sourcing, but there is nothing obviously missing. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the comments at the PR (and, of course, the support)! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Why does KH come after Kutoyo? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because I really should type more slowly (fixed). Thanks for the source review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support and comments from Jim Usual high standards, just a couple of comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masyumi and National Revolution—I'm not clear why the final words are capitalised
Have gone with capitals as this is an abbreviated proper name (Indonesian National Revolution) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The British initially focused on Java and Sumatra, hoping to avoid armed confrontations with the Republican forces—Earlier in this para, you have said the republicans were in Jakarta, which is in Java. As written, this sentence is unclear.
Have reworded to be less ambiguous — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image check: All images are legitimately in the public domain, and all required information is present. Usage and captions are appropriate.
Links: Jakarta is linked at the 2nd and 3rd mention, but should be linked only at the first. Ulama is linked twice, but that could be appropriate: it's linked in non-adjacent sections, and it's an unfamiliar term for many readers that is important in the article. Sukarno is linked twice, and that's less useful. I detect no other linking issues.
Done, removed all extra links (as "ulama" is explained in-text, I don't think the second link has much value). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some minor wording changes. I think they improve the prose, but if you disagree, feel free to revert.
I think the sentence beginning "During a leadership course..." would be clearer if it were broken up, but honestly I'm not sure of the best way to do this.
Note [a] seems to have a typo when it ends a sentence with "...and thus sought to purify the religion from."
Reworded (along with below) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also in note [a], it's pretty clear that "pious communities" rejected the Muhammadiyah for promoting individual interpretation of the Qur'an, and not for opposing syncretism (which they would presumably agree with). But it's not clear whether "officials" and "Islamic teachers in the countrysides" opposed Muhammadiyah for being too liberal (for promoting individual interpretation) or too conservative (for denouncing syncretism), or some of both. Do you see what I mean? The note seems to say that the Muhammadiyah were modernist in one way, and then it says they were still conservative in a different way... and then it says "as such" they were opposed by three different groups. I just can't tell if all three groups thought them too modernist, or if some thought them too strict.
Actually, some pious communities may have also taken issue with the attempt to eliminate the syncretism. The Sultan of Yogyakarta, for instance, is considered an Islamic leader by many Javanese despite the sultanate's Hindu influences. You can see how Ricklefs puts it here, especially "pious Javanese had believed for centuries to be the true Islam" (I've also added links to kejawen and kebatinan which give more details). It is a fairly complex issue which should (don't think it is) be more detailed at the Muhammadiyah article. Hopefully the removal of the word "modernist" here will avoid more confusion, and I've reworded slightly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. It's quite a confusing set of issues, but that's religion for you. – Quadell(talk) 23:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note [b] begins with a capital and ends with a period as if it were a sentence, but it's worded as a dependent clause. I would simply change "having" to "had".
Question: Is it correct to say "during Ramadhan of 1961"? I don't know a lot about standards for Islamic calendar representation on Wikipedia, but it seems like an odd wording to me. If you mean the month, Ramadan is a part of the Islamic calendar, but 1961 is a Western year representation. (Wouldn't it be either Ramadan of 1380 AH, or February/March of 1961?) If you mean the religious observational period, wouldn't it be "Ramadham in 1961"? I honestly don't know what the standard is here.
That is a very good question. The source (based on my memory, Google won't let me see the page now) uses the Western year and Ramadan, though I think it does mention the Hijri year. I have tried rephrasing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I am leaning toward supporting. – Quadell(talk) 17:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! I hope I have addressed your questions to your satisfaction. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All my concerns have been addressed, and this article fulfills all our FA criteria. – Quadell(talk) 23:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my peer review of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the FA criteria. I've been working on this article for months now, and it was recently promoted to good article status. Since then, I've significantly expanded the article to make it more comprehensive. Polytope24 (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other thoughts about this? I explained my rationale for using the Escher image over at File:Escher Circle Limit III.jpg. I can change the images if the community deems it necessary, but the Escher image is prettier, and I think I'm justified in using it… Polytope24 (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is the suggested replacement sufficient for the same encyclopedic purpose? I.e. does it convey the same information needed to understand the article or section? If yes, the non-free image and its derivative should be replaced. Being more famous or prettier is no valid rationale to prefer the non-free version. (Off-topic for this FA: Usage in Möbius transformation is also questionable. Other usages in the remaining articles appear to have stronger rationales, as the woodcut is either the focus of those articles or is discussed in more detail.) GermanJoe (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I changed the images. Polytope24 (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am concerned about this article. The topic of the article is very complex physics, and the subject is accessible to a very small number of people. Because of this, there are very few Wikipedia editors capable of usefully editing the content (as opposed to the formatting) of this article, and of critiquing the article as a whole. Indeed, almost all recent edits (from mid-August) have been by Polytope24, and it seems to me that the GA review was carried out with input only from one other editor, SPat. I would feel more comfortable about granting this article "featured" status if we were able to find a few more appropriately-qualified editors to review it. None of this is meant to disparage the article as it currently stands, or Polytope24's hard work; I'd simply like to confirm that adequate reviews have been performed. RomanSpa (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. It's true that the subject of this article is very technical, but I've tried to write the article in such a way that even non-experts can understand and verify its content. If you look at the references, you'll notice that much of the article is based on a popular article by Juan Maldacena in Scientific American. I would love to have more non-experts weigh in on this article and tell me if they find it accessible.
That said, I understand that it's difficult for a non-expert to support or oppose this nomination. If you like, I can look for people to review the article. I could probably find someone over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics. Polytope24 (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be an excellent course of action. Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I came here from a request at WT:Physics as a physicist, but don't claim to know anything about FA criteria or judging process. I'll stick to content. I've worked through the article up to but not including the Applications to quantum field theory section.
Overall I'd say that given the difficulty of the material, the article is well written and neutral. AdS/CFT is somewhat controversial in some parts of the physics community and the article is correct to have a criticism section (Disclaimer: I have a connection to P.W. Anderson, who is one of those critics). I don't see any undue biases in the presentation of subtopics. One subtopic I don't see mentioned is the correspondence with a particular tpye of viscous fluid dynamics, e.g., [24] and [25]. But perhaps this is discussed in the Sachdev article; I don't have access to that at the moment.
Here are some particular things that could be improved in the article. I'm being intentionally picky here. Compared to most physics article, this one is well referenced.
conformal field theory is a scale invariant quantum field theory -- Not all scale invariant QFTs are automatically conformally invariant.
The surface of this cylinder is called the conformal boundary of three-dimensional anti-de Sitter space. -- This needs a reference; the SciAm article referenced in the same para does not mention conformal boundary.
It may also be good to explain what is meant by a conformal boundary, since it is such a core concept in the correspondence. A naive reader might say 'You just told me that AdS has a metric, a definite measure of distance. How is the boundary of that space now magically scale invariant?'
Here the gravitational theory has four noncompact dimensions, so this version of the correspondence provides a somewhat more realistic description of gravity. -- Probably needs a ref--who says this theory is a more realistic description of gravity? It is a reasonable statement, but we cannot draw our own conclusions here.
Hope this is helpful and apologies for anything irrelevant to FAC. --Mark viking (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - this looks very good. I hope that we can find someone to perform a similar review on the second half of the article. RomanSpa (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Mark viking for this helpful review. I've made the following changes in response to your comments:
1. I've changed every instance of the term "conformal boundary" to "boundary" as in the SciAm article by Maldacena. The precise definition of conformal boundary is rather technical, and it seems unnecessary to include it in this article, which is supposed to provide a nontechnical overview. Besides, the article already makes it clear that the boundary we're talking about is infinitely far from any point in the interior.
2. I made some changes to the section on quantum field theory to emphasize that a conformal field theory is a special type of highly symmetric theory, not just a scale invariant one.
3. I added a more specific citation for the claim that the AdS4/CFT3 correspondence provides a more realistic description of gravity.
4. I had originally decided not to discuss applications to fluid dynamics in this article because it's not clear to me that there are any really serious applications to fluid dynamics. Since you noticed this omission, I have added a sentence to the end of the history section noting that this is a topic of current research.
Please let me know if I've failed to address any of your concerns. Thanks again. Polytope24 (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing these points. I agree with your decision to drop the 'conformal' from conformal boundary for the sake accessibility. All your other changes look good. I agree that the fluid dynamics connection warrants no more than a sentence. You've addressed all my points. --Mark viking (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the second half of the article (see the comments on the first half above). I also found this half to be well written and well referenced. As above, here are some picky criticisms:
fluid is viewed as a field theoretic analog of a black hole. -- as written, I cannot tell what this means. What is the field theoretic analog of a black hole? I can make some guess, but best to provide a little more descritpion here.
In 1999, after taking a job at Columbia University, nuclear physicist Đàm Thanh Sơn paid a visit to Andrei Starinets, a friend from Sơn's undergraduate days who happened to be doing a Ph.D. in string theory at New York University. -- This level of detail on undergraduate friendships is a nice story, but is a trivial detail in a broad summary of the whole topic. Perhaps best to reduce to excise it.
Such a duality is interesting from the point of view of cosmology since many cosmologists believe that the very early universe was close to being de Sitter space. -- citation needed for many cosmologists believing this.
In the Black hole information paradox section you alluded to the Bekenstein bound for black hole information and in the later Black holes and holography section, you mentioned the holographic principle Both these concepts are closely related, as mentioned in both articles. There should be some mention of the connection of these in this article. Although Black hole information paradox and Black holes and holography are split into two sections, they are fairly closely related.
I'm not qualified to judge whether this meets FAC, but I must say, well done! --Mark viking (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these comments. Here's a summary of what I did:
1. I clarified the sentence on "field theoretic analog of a black hole".
2. For now, I'm leaving the story about Son and Starinets as it is. During the GA review of this article, I was encouraged to add lots of details and trivia to the history section since this is the section that lay readers will focus on. The thinking was that such readers will be most interested in historical details, anecdotes, and personal relationships of the scientists involved in AdS/CFT. I would like to hear what other reviewers think about this decision. If others agree that there's too much trivial information, then I'll go ahead and change it.
3. I added a citation on the early universe being close to de Sitter space.
4. It seems there was some confusion about my reference to Jacob Bekenstein in the section "Black hole information paradox". It was not my intention to say anything about the Bekenstein bound. In fact, the reference in that section was unnecessary and works much better in the history section, so I moved it. I hope this helps to streamline the article a bit.
Thanks again, and please let me know if there are any other issues. Polytope24 (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing my points. I wasn't aware of the GA discussion about the history section. If adding details and trivia is what is wanted there, that's OK by me; I have a tendency to just concentrate on the physics. I agree that the Bekenstein info makes more sense in the history section. You have addressed all my points.
I cropped the Susskind photo to emphasize the man, rather than his table, and pointed the article to the cropped version. Feel free to revert if you don't think it is an improvement. --Mark viking (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that looks great. Thank you. Polytope24 (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Based on the content of the article and having all my concerns addressed, I support this article for FA status. --Mark viking (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I like how this article manages to find a nice balance between being technical and accessible. While some may ding you on accessibility, on my read-through, even with no understanding of the math behind string theory and its extensions, I was still able to understand what it meant, but not at the expense of technical details. Nonetheless, there are a few things that I think could use some work:
I think it would be nice to have some more consistency in using "we" versus "one" when describing things.
How does this theory solve the black hole information paradox? I was not quite clear on this while reading the article?
"Some condensed matter theorists hope that the AdS/CFT correspondence will make it possible to describe these systems in the language of string theory and learn more about their behavior.[48]" Any examples of who?
"During the transition, the atoms behave in an unusual way," in what way is their behavior unusual?
In the criticism section, refs need to go at the end of the quote, as well as where they are now.
I think the history section goes a little too in-depth about Hawking's black hole work.
Other than these, the article looks good to me, and I'd support after these issues are resolved. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I'll make changes as soon as possible, hopefully later today. Polytope24 (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I just finished making some changes. Rather than remove anything in response to your last comment, I actually added some language to explain why Hawking's work is very important in the history of AdS/CFT. In the previous version, I think maybe it wasn't clear why explained his work in depth.
Thanks for helping out with the review, and let me know if you have any further comments. Polytope24 (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, content concerns addressed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At this point I've received some excellent feedback by several other editors, but I'm concerned that the FAC coordinators may close the nomination if there are no other reviews. I would appreciate any suggestions from editors who have more experience with the review process. (RomanSpa may have something to say about this.)
I would also like to make a couple of observations related to WP:FA Criteria:
In his review, Mark viking stated that the article was "well written", "neutral", and "well referenced".
The only comment about comprehensiveness was that the article should mention applications to fluid dynamics, and this point has now been addressed.
Chris857 and GermanJoe had some concerns about pictures which have now been addressed.
The article was recently reviewed by SPat and promoted to GA status. This means that it is well written, well referenced, neutral, stable, and illustrated by appropriate images.
Since there don't seem to be any concerns about adherence to WP:MOS, I'm inlined to say that this article meets all the criteria. I would support it myself, but I'm not sure if that's acceptable considering that I nominated the article. I would appreciate any advice people have. Polytope24 (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
I am coming here as a mathematician familiar with AdS/CFT (although not an expert on the physics) because of a request from the principal editor at WT:WPM. In my corner of the world, the AdS/CFT correspondence is typically associated with the names of Charles Fefferman (of Princeton University) and Robin Graham (of the University of Washington) owing to a paper on the subject that they published in a special issue of the journal Asterisque some time in the 1980s (a more detailed and quite recent paper by these authors is available on the arxiv [26]). A reference to this work is conspicuously missing from the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. The work that you mention is the subject of one of the links in the "See also" section. I also went ahead and added a footnote and reference. Polytope24 (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
I was solicited by the principal editor. I am a theoretical physicist and I am aware of Maldacena's conjecture mostly from works in AdS/QCD. As far as I can tell, there has been some effort by Cumrun Vafa to move this to the status of a theorem. How far is this situation now? Is there something certain that could be stated about? Besides, there also should be numerical attempts in the direction to confirm the conjecture. What is the literature about, if any? This conjecture is something like an important pillar of string theory, much like supersymmetry. If this is the situation (a failure in Maldacena's conjecture is a failure of string theory) then it should be properly emphasized. Finally, I would support this FA nomination as this is becoming a key aspect in a large part of physics and this is properly pointed out in the article. It is possible that all this matter will end up like the bootstrap model in the sixties, I do not know, but due to the relevant role it has now, an article like this is overdue. Better if so well written and presented.--Pra1998 (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I added a couple of lines explaining that, while there is considerable evidence for AdS/CFT coming from calculations in field theory and string theory, it has not been proved in any generality. I also did a Google search on numerical checks of AdS/CFT, but I wasn't able to find anything significant. If you have a specific article in mind, I'd be glad to mention it.
If you'd like to support the nomination, please remember to post the word "Support" on this page, in bold. Thanks again for your help. Polytope24 (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, satisfactory article, to be promoted.--Pra1998 (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: coming here at request from Polytope24. I think this article is darn close to the FA criteria, but not quite yet. (The GA status is well deserved, and the recent editors are to be applauded.) I agree with other commenters who note that the article is now comprehensive, well researched, and neutral. I also think the overall structure/style is fine. Things that I think should be fixed up:
Criteria 1a: there are scattered first-person pronouns ("we" and "our") in the form of the polite construction which includes the reader. WP:MOS allows these despite their non-encyclopedic style, but indicates that alternative sentence structures are preferred if possible. I think that most (not all) of the occurrences here can be fixed up quite easily without using "we" or "our".
Criteria 4: I'm sorry to say that the absolutely lovely level of detail, which appears to have been encouraged in previous edits, leaves the article too long. Perhaps I'm wrong. However, I do believe that the well-written "History and Development" section gets off topic, and is more like a history of holography in general than a history of AdS/CFT specifically.
Thanks for your comments. I have now removed every instance of the word "we" except in quotations. I also removed some sentences from the subsection on "Black holes and holography" which was a bit too long. Other than that, I'm not sure how I can shorten the article. AdS/CFT is an enormous topic (according to Google, Maldacena's original paper now has 11,557 citations!), so naturally any survey will be rather long. I welcome comments from other users on how I might improve the length. Polytope24 (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better to me now. My feeling is that that article is still long, but, yes, this is a huge (and important) subject. Moreover, looking at Wikipedia:Featured_articles/By_length, I see that there are about 1600 FAs which are longer than this article. I'm more comfortable with the length now. SupportSpatrick99 (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: have the sources been spot-checked yet? doesn't look like the GA review checked them. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 22:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The GA reviewer left some comments about references on this page, which I have tried to address in my revisions. Polytope24 (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notes -- Although we have a pretty clear consensus to promote this article, there are still some things that need addressing:
Sourcing -- I'd like to see a more comprehensive spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing; this is normal procedure for a nominator new to FAC. I'll post a request for this at WT:FAC.
Citations -- As a general rule, all paragraphs should end with a citation; this is not the case with the last two paras of Quantum gravity and strings. Pls check for other cases as well.
Overlinking -- While linking spacetime makes perfect sense to me, linking space and time seems a bit much; suggest you re-check the article for similar instances of possible overlinking.
Duplicate links -- Beyond whether something should be linked at all, there are numerous instances where links are repeated; you can check for the repeated links with this script. Note that in a detailed article you might be justified in re-linking items that appear several sections apart, but pls review in any case.
Okay, everything except the spotcheck should be taken care of now. Polytope24 (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Almost... Appears that everything above has been actioned now except that the last sentence of Three-dimensional gravity is not cited. Also I'm a bit unsure of the wording in a sentence in that subsection: "Another conjecture due to Edward Witten states..." -- "due to" reads oddly to me, do we mean "Another conjecture made by [or attributed to or credited to] Edward Witten, or do we mean "Another conjecture that has arisen owing to the work of Edward Witten, or something else again? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit up front that I am only able to understand this article in a superficial way, and I am thoroughly unable to follow most of the sources. Despite this, my experience with featured articles on Wikipedia allows me to make a few intelligent comments, at least.
First off, per WP:LEAD, a lead should summarize all sections of the article without containing information not present in other sections. For this reason, most leads do not need citations at all, unless a particular statements is controversial or contains a direct quote. This lead has ten citations; although some are for statements that could be seen as contentious (e.g. "represents a major advance in our understanding"), others are utterly uncontroversial (e.g. "first proposed by Juan Maldacena in late 1997"), and are restated and sourced in the body. I (along with many other reviewers) find most citations in the lead to be an unnecessary distraction.
What is particularly troubling in this instance is that, often, the citations for statements in the lead are not used to support those same statements in the body. For instance, reference 2 sources the lead's statement that AdS/CFT correspondence "represents a major advance in our understanding of string theory and quantum gravity", but the only other place the reference is used says that the work "provided a concrete realization of the holographic principle with important implications for quantum gravity and black hole physics", which isn't really the same thing. If the citation were omitted from the lead, would the lead's claim be supported by citations in the body? I can't tell. Similarly, citation 5 supports the possibly contentious "provides a powerful toolkit" statement in the lead, but is not used in the body. In fact, the source (Klebanov and Maldacena) is only ever used in the body in the introduction to anti-de Sitter space, which is not clearly related to the statement in the lead.
Though I don't feel comfortable supporting or opposing an article I don't fully understand, I do consider the problem with the lead's sourcing to be an impediment to FA status.
In a more minor concern, when a citation says "See the subsection below", this isn't really accurate, since the noted subsection is above the notes section.
Finally, I made a valiant but failed attempt to perform spotchecks. With great effort, I was able to determine that footnote 40 was supported by the source without plagiarism, and I'm 90% sure that the sources for footnotes 25b and 25c support their statements. I can also confirm that these, and several others, do not copy or closely parallel the wording in the sources. But I'm just not competent to analyze whether most of the statements are fully supported by the sources given (although it seems at least plausible in every check I made). – Quadell(talk) 19:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. In the article by de Haro et al., the relevant sentence appears on the second page, where it says
its results are… the suggested implication, acknowledged by Hawking, that black holes do not violate quantum theory… the holographic description of gravity realized in string theory, which has led to key conceptual insights in understanding gravity and geometry…
In the lead, this is being used to justify the statement that the AdS/CFT correspondence represents a major advance in our understanding of quantum gravity. This is definitely related to the subsequent claim that AdS/CFT "provides a concrete realization of the holographic principle with important implications for quantum gravity and black hole physics". The point is that the holographic principle is a very important theoretical idea, and if you have a theory that incorporates this idea, then you can learn a lot about the quantum aspects of gravity, and in particular, how gravitational phenomena like black holes are consistent with quantum mechanics.
The article by Klebanov and Maldacena is being used in the lead to provide a quick reference for the statement that AdS/CFT "provides a powerful toolkit for studying strongly coupled quantum field theories". I would say that this also follows from the material in the body, but I think its good to err on the side of caution when making statements like this.
You're right that this Klebanov-Maldacena article serves a different function in the body of the article. Here the relevant sentence is the following:
The gravitational theory involves a dynamic spacetime fluctuating around a special curved background
The authors are implicitly referring to anti-de Sitter space in this sentence, so this citation is being used to justify the statement that "the geometry of spacetime is described in terms of a certain vacuum solution of Einstein's equation called anti-de Sitter space." Please let me know if there's any problem with this reference.
Please let me know if I should remove any citations from the lead. Thanks. Polytope24 (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your responses. In my interpretation of MOS:LEAD, citations are only needed in the lead if they support particularly contentious statements or direct quotes. (Some articles do make it to FA with more lead citations than necessary, but I think it's optimal to have as few as possible.) Instead, every statement in the lead should be more fully given and expounded upon in the body, and the statement should be supported there with the best source possible. (That's true whether you cite a given statement in the lead or not.) – Quadell(talk) 13:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I removed the unnecessary citations in the lead. Polytope24 (talk) 06:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! The only other problems I see are with reference formatting. (You need spaces between the "p." and the page number, and between "sec." and the section number. Page ranges should have en-dashes, rather than "--" or "-". There may be other reference formatting concerns as well.) – Quadell(talk) 12:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a few other formatting changes to the citations, plus two edits (1, 2) that I'm only 90% sure are correct. (Could someone double-check me on that last point?)
My only remaining concern about the references is that if a book has an ISBN, it needs to be included in the "References" section. (Zweibach's A First Course in String Theory, for instance, has an ISBN of 978-0521880329.) Once you add those, all reference formatting concerns should be resolved. – Quadell(talk) 21:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article conforms to our MoS, and the references are formatted correctly. I can confirm that it fulfills #2, #3, and probabaly #4 of our Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Since I'm not qualified to confirm criterion #1, I really can't fully support or oppose in good conscience... but I can at least say that I see no reason this shouldn't be featured. – Quadell(talk) 13:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 5, fails verification. Neither Newton nor Maxwell are mentioned in the article.
Ref 7, close paraphrasing.
Article text: "the most well studied (sic) approach to quantum gravity is string theory"
Source text: "string theory, the most studied approach to quantum gravity"
Ref 8, fails verification. The citation is preceded by several sentences explaining the four-dimensional nature of spacetime and the peculiarities of string theory and M-theory. P. 8 of Zwiebach doesn't even mention the four dimensions of spacetime. It does support your statements about string theory being ten-dimensional and M-theory being eleven-dimensional. I'm not saying that what you've written about spacetime is incorrect, I'm just saying it isn't cited here. Also, Zwiebach appears to be an undergraduate textbook. Is it considered authoritative, and are these definitions uncontroversial enough that we wouldn't prefer a peer-reviewed source?
Ref 16, seems OK. It's difficult to tell without fully understanding the material. The source provided does introduce and define anti-de Sitter space, and seems to include vacuum solution material (albeit without explicitly calling it a vacuum solution).
Ref 46, OK.
I was a bit uncomfortable with the material so I may in fact be wrong about ref 16. Polytope24, I have no doubt that you understand the material and that what you've written before ref 8 is correct. However, everything has to be verifiable and even if this is very basic physics, we need a citation supporting spacetime being four-dimensional. Judging by the scarcity of citations in some places, I'm guessing there may be other areas where you've made introductory statements that are not covered by the citation at the end of the paragraph. --Laser brain(talk) 17:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments.
Citation #5 is meant to provide a reference for the fact that general relativity is part of classical physics. The fact that classical physics was studied by Newton and Maxwell is very basic and easy to verify. I have moved the citation to emphasize that it pertains to the first statement.
I tweaked the language near citation #7.
I added a citation on the fact that spacetime is four-dimensional. It's true that Zwiebach is an undergraduate textbook, but I don't think that "undergraduate text" and "authoritative" are mutually exclusive. I can cite a more advanced text if people want, but I think that would only make the article harder to verify. Polytope24 (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these changes. For the record, I don't know anything about physics and I found the writing to be appropriately accessible. A novice would likely have to click off into a lot of linked articles for prerequisite information, but that's OK. --Laser brain(talk) 18:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- It appears to me that the article has had a good mix of reviewers, ranging from those familiar with physics but not with FAC, to the exact opposite -- thanks to all of you. Most importantly the nominator has responded positively and promptly to reviewers' comments -- I hope you've found this a worthwhile experience and will return with other articles, and also take part in reviewing others' FACs, whether maths/science-based or not. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Michael Tippett was, in his lifetime, often ranked alongside Benjamin Britten as one of Britain's leading 20th century composers. Britten has retained his high standing, while Tippett's has fallen somewhat precipitously. Less naturally gifted than Britten, Tippett took a long time getting established; after finally achieving recognition he changed his style more than once, with limited success. While a few of his works remain popular—the oratorio A Child of our Time outstandingly so—much of his music has disappeared from the repertory. His loyal admirers believe his time will come again; whether that be so, he led a long and interesting life as a composer, conductor and musical theorist, and remains an important if enigmatic figure in English music. Thanks are due to User:Andrew Lowe Watson for the initial spadework from which this article is derived. Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support
I had my say at peer review, and such minor quibbles as I had were properly dealt with there. Just two minor points now:
Lead
Postnominal gongs – no strong objection to their being in small type, but I don't think it's usual
I copied this format from the superb Edward Elgar article, and I thought it looked rather good! Each to its own, of course. Brianboulton (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
General characterics – plainly a typo in the header, but not sure if you mean characteristics or character; I think I'd go for the latter, but over to you to decide.
Evidence of my indecision. I have gone for the latter - thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's my lot. Clearly an article that meets the FAC criteria. Very pleased indeed to add my support for its promotion. – Tim riley (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your peer review help and for your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also had my say at the peer review. Well done as always.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image check All images acceptably licensed. One fair use image used for the identification of the subject with an acceptable fair use rationale.
Thanks for support and image check (I assume that the image check is yours?) Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – with a few comments.
"Although neither she nor Henry was musical.." -- I want to say, "Although neither she nor Henry were musical..."
According to Fowler: "... after neither...nor. If both subjects are singular & in the third person, ... the verb must be singular & not plural." --Stfg (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What a curious language we have, thanks! -- CassiantoTalk 21:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We link Cornwall, Suffolk and Kent, but not Dorset?
According to Bowen, most "were simply unprepared for a work that departed so far from the methods of Puccini and Verdi".[68][50] -- Ref order.
Thanks for your sharp eyes (someone has fixed the ref order), for your review help and support here. Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This is an excellent piece of work, which I found very readable and generally easy to follow. The music section lost me in one or two places, but that is more a reflection on me than on the writing. There was nothing obviously wrong there, but in truth I wouldn’t know even if there was. I’ve a few general points/questions about the life section, but none of them are major. Feel free to tell me where to go, and they do not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
”He was widely considered to rank with his contemporary Benjamin Britten”: can we say anything stronger than “widely considered”? I also wonder does this point come across clearly in the main body.
I have reworded "widely considered", and have added a sentence to the legacy section which covers the Tippett/Britten comparison. Brianboulton (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a link we could use for “lyricism”? If not, best left I think.
No useful link suggests itself Brianboulton (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
”Tippett had firmly decided on a career as a composer, a prospect that alarmed them and was discouraged by his headmaster and by Sargent”: Was there any particular reason for everyone’s negative attitude, or just a general “oh no, a life in the arts!” problem?
I think his parents were hoping for a more conventional career – Cambridge and the law, perhaps. Sargent was not a natural encourager, and the headmaster was probably a fairly conventional soul. Brianboulton (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
”His overtly expressed atheism particularly troubled the school, and he was required to leave.”: This sounds quite intriguing. Any further details worth adding? We are basically saying he was expelled. What did he do?
While referreng to Tippett's "undisguised atheism", the only practical examples Kemp gives are his refusal to contribute to the collections at school services and his boycotting of house prayers. Thse would have been considered serious breaches of conduct in a 1920s British school. He wasn't expelled exactly, but his parents were advised not to send him back the following term, which I suppose amounts to much the same thing. Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
”In 1923 Henry Tippett agreed to support his son in a course of study at the Royal College of Music”: Any reason for the change of attitude?
It was the idea of a career as a composer that attracted opposition The RCM offered a range of possibilities for a music career – I have added a few words to explain this. Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in passing, was his overt atheism not a problem at the RCM, as opposed to Stamford?
No mention of it - RCM was a gown-up institution. Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anything further on his sexuality as a young man? We go from “bullying, sadism and homosexuality among the pupils were rife” at school, and that he had formed a relationship, to “By this time Tippett was coming to terms with his homosexuality” when he met Wilfred Franks. Are there any intervening steps? It feels a touch abrupt, but maybe it’s just me.
There are references in the sources to occasional relationships in his college years. I have summarised these in the last line of the RCM section, and don't feel it appropriate to go further. I want the focus of the article to be on Tippett the musician, not Tippett the homosexual. Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
”Both works proved hugely popular with their worker-audiences”: Do we really need a hyphen in “worker-audiences”?
I agree it's an ugly construction, and have made it just "audiences". Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
”…became the first in the official canon of Tippett's music”: What official canon? Or maybe whose official canon? This is mentioned later too, and could perhaps be defined for the non-specialist.
I have changed "official" to "recognised", to avoid the impression of some outside officialdom. I think readers will understand, articularly as we have previously discussed a number of "withdrawn" works. Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
”when he was assigned to non-combatant duties”: Is it worth saying what those duties were?
He was initially assigned to the ARP (Air Raid Precautions) or the Fire Service, or to work on the land. Later he was given further options including ENSA. The point, though, is that he refused to comply with any of these. I prefer to keep thing simple. Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
”In the summer of 1965 Tippett made the first of many visits to the United States, to serve as composer in residence at the Aspen Music Festival in Colorado, .”: Something has gone wrong at the end of the sentence here with the punctuation.
Someone has removed the intruding comma. Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the nomination above, you state that he was "less naturally gifted than Britten". Unless I've missed it (which is possible) this doesn't seem to be in the article directly. Is it a point that could be made explicitly? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is fairly self-evident that Tippett was less naturally gifted than Britten, given the speed with which BB established himself in the music world and the time that it took Tippett to do so, but I don't want to overdo the Britten–Tippett comparison in the article. Thank you for your thoughtful comments and suggestions, which I have iether adopted or answered, and thanks for the support. Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Hamiltonstone. Generally excellent and well-referenced, and supporti would oppose it while it contains one particular clanger:
"The school was not a happy place; bullying, sadism and homosexuality among the pupils were rife". This linking of a sexual orientation to anti-social behaviour and thence to unhappiness is completely untenable. Homosexuality cannot be "rife" either, it is like saying red-headedness was rife. Serious need of a tweak.
Would it be better to say homosexual activity rather than homosexuality? By the way, homosexual activity between men was a criminal offence in the UK in those days. Such activity was an expelling offence in schools and something to be concealed at all costs. To avoid the implications you point out, how about: "The school was not a happy place: bullying and sadism were rife, and homosexual activity, a cause of great shame on those days, was common among the pupils", or words like that? --Stfg (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I recognise that homosexual acts were criminalised in that period. The two things I want to avoid is the bracketing of homosexuality (a state of sexual preference) with sadism and bullying (forms of anti-social behaviour), and the application of the term "rife" to homosexuality; I also agree that referring to acts or activity may also assist. The problem with "shame" is that it places its origin within the individual, in contrast to the term "stigma" for example, which places it in the society which criminalises the act (which i would suggest is more accurate, while accepting that Tippett, like others, did struggle with his own sexual identity). How about: "The school was not a happy place: bullying and sadism were rife, and homosexual activity, which was illegal, was common among the pupils"? Can I just check though: do the sources refer to homosexuality, or to homosexual acts? In the circumstances, the distinction could be important.hamiltonstone (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if my wording caused offence. In fact it follows the sources quite closely, e.g. Bowen: "He found the bullying, the homosxuality and the emphasis on cold baths quite intolerable"; and Kemp: "Bullying and sadism were commnplace ... The ageing headmaster zealously upheld the principle that the younger boys were the property of the older". I take the point that homosexuality as such should not be automatically aligned with sadism and bullying, although sexual bullying in such schools was common, even in my day, half a century after Tippett. I have reworded the phrase to "sadistic bullying of the younger pupils was commonplace", leaving out direct reference to the sexual element. I personally prefer this to the extended wording suggested above, but I am happy to be guided. Brianboulton (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the social stigma once applied to homosexuality is today far less than it was when Tippett was a schoolboy, it is difficult to convey to readers nowadays the covert and often warped sexuality to be found at British boarding schools, not all of it involving younger pupils, mixed with much overt homophobia, even in the 1960s and '70s. Given this, and the dangers of WP:SYN and WP:OR (looking at the available sources), I think Brian has done a very tactful and acceptable edit. (btw, a minor point, but given that boys' boarding schools were, by definition, single sex and boarders' contact with girls was, at best, strictly controlled in Tippett's time, to an extent I think it might have been said that in those circumstances homosexuality, or rather homosexual acts, were "rife".) Alfietucker (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Brian. I wasn't offended, just would not want to see concepts inappropriately connected. Agree with much of Alfie's observations including that in some such circumstances it is homosexual acts, not homosexuality, which may be common. Brian's solution appears excellent and focusses on the core of the problem i think. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments:
"His overtly expressed atheism" should this perhaps be hyphenated as "overtly-expressed"? But I'm not sure.
Standard practice is not to hyphenate after a -ly adverb. --Stfg (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"quasi-authentic". Really? The previous sentence expresses what is meant, but to my ear "quasi-authentic" is a contradiction. i would omit the description altogether since we have already been told the meaning.
I used "quasi" (Latin: "as if") in the sense of "resembling but not actually", but I accept that, given the description in the previous sentence, the term is unnecessary and have removed it. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that the final para, beginning "In the 1930s, while still unsure of his sexuality,..." is in the right place. It is both an odd way to end the article, and not really text appropriate to the section's heading "reputation and legacy". While it obviously addresses a great time span, I would try it as the first paragraph of "Later life".
I have moved the paragraph to where you suggest. I agree that it doesn't fit comfortably in a "Legacy" section, though I'm not absolutely convinced it's in the best place now. If further thoughts occur, I may move it again. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the Wright reference, I assume the 2 is meant to be a quote mark or similar? "2Decline or renewal in late Tippett..."
This seems to have been fixed.
Marvellous research and writing. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and suggestions, all positive and thought-provoking and contributing to the improvement of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I was another who had my say at PR and it has only been strengthened since then. Another excellent and interesting read. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I had my say at PR and I fully support this article's promotion to FA - a very impressive piece of work. Alfietucker (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My sincere thanks to the above two, whose contributions at the peer review stage were much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComment Is After Britten's death in 1976, Tippett became widely regarded as the doyen of British music. However, critical opinion of his later works was by no means uniformly positive; after the first performance of the Triple Concerto in 1980, Driver wrote that "not since The Knot Garden has [he] produced anything worthy of his early masterpieces". really up to our standards for prose? I don't like the "however", which seems to me to imply a contradiction where none should exist, and the tailend of the sentence looks clumsy. Any suggestions? --John (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re "However", I think Stfg has already answered this very well on Talk:Michael Tippett#However: "However signals (or acknowledges) a contrast, not necessarily anywhere near as strong as a contradiction. By all means choose another link word, but with no link word at all, I find it bumpy -- anything but "brilliant prose"." Alfietucker (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think "however" is justified, particular as I have "now amplified on the "doyen" description. I do accept that, as noted on the talk, "by no means uniformly positive" is unnecessarily verbose and have simplified this to "not always positive". Brianboulton (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I now support based on the minor changes made on the article. It's a fine piece of work. --John (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, and for the numerous minor improvements you made to the prose in the course of your unobtrusive review. Brianboulton (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—To start with, I cannot support the unsourced gossip in the lead concerning a comparison with another composer. It violates WP:UNDUE; it is highly unusual for a bio article, particularly one on an artist, scholar, or scientist. Tony(talk) 14:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand this objection. Stating that "he was considered to rank with his contemporary Benjamin Britten as one of the leading British composers" is hardly making a comparison, merely reflecting what critics have written. If you are objecting to the words "with his contemporary Benjamin Britten" perhaps you'd say so, and we can discuss the matter. In any event, comparisons between Tippett and Britten are not "unsourced gossip". Indeed, Whittall wrote an entire book on the subject, which is quoted from in the Legacy section. I also quote from a newspaper report which compares the post-mortem fortunes of the two. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the point of your objection; meanwhile I contend that the article gives no undue weight to this comparison, and will be interested to see if other editors share your viewpoint. Brianboulton (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see anything either unsourced, or that could be described as gossip. As per WP:LEAD, I see a lead that reflects the contents of the article, and the comparison between Britten and Tippett are adequately covered in reliable sources in the article body. - SchroCat (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I too am perplexed by Tony1's comment. The relations between Tippett and Britten and comparisons between their music are a recurrent theme in the relevant literature, and, as SchroCat says, sourced citations are given in the main text. The phrase "unsourced gossip" is way off the mark, as the material is neither unsourced nor gossip. I worked recently on the biography part of the Britten FA and everything in the present article relevant to the relationship between and music of Britten and Tippett accords with what I know from my researches for that. In my opinion this stray "oppose" carries no weight and should be withdrawn or discounted. Tim riley (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tony1, could you elaborate on this "gossip"? I don't see it either. --CassiantoTalk 20:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to overegg the pudding, but among relevant material not used in the article is Meirion Bowen's 1986 programme note "Britten, Tippett and the Second English Musical Renaissance" which regards the two as " figureheads for a fresh surge of compositional activity in this country after the Second World War"; Charles Fussell's 1984 review of Whittall's book, here, which brackets them as "two twentieth century masters", and some interesting stuff in Humphrey Burton's Britten biography which notes that, in the early 1970s, "Britten's reputation had been overtaken by that of Tippett" – and that Tippett was aware of this! My article is not basically about Tippett vis à vis Britten; the main purpose of mentioning the latter is to establish that, in the view of many critics, Tippett was "up there" with the best. I must say, finally, that Tony was very helpful in the early stages of the article's development, and I welcomed his cooperation. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't take all that much store by Bowen. Why is Britten not "considered to rank with his contemporary" Tippettt, in the lead to the article on Britten? This cannot help but cast Tippett as second fiddle. He would have hated it. He and Britten had a strained relationship, to put it mildly, and it's POV to privilege one over the other in this way. If it's sourced in the article further down, that is fine: to trumpet it as a key aspect of understanding the phenomenon of Tippett is most inappropriate. Tony(talk) 08:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than get drawn on the issue of who thought/thinks Tippett ranks alongside or out-ranks Britten (though one could also mention Sir Colin Davis and Robert Tear among those who thought Tippett a greater composer), I would just point out that the sentence as it stands has the qualifying words "In his [Tippett's] lifetime..." and "one of the leading British composers of the 20th century". Note that it doesn't say "one of the two leading British composers of the 20th century", so it doesn't even suggest that Tippett is somehow equal to Britten - just someone who ranks alongside Britten in being esteemed as a "leading British composers of the 20th century". Nor does it suggest he shares the same esteem today - on the contrary, the lead then mentions "His centenary in 2005 was a muted affair; apart from the few best-known works, performances of his music have been infrequent in the 21st century.". A possible compromise might be (bearing in mind that the 20th century included Vaughan Williams, Walton and Elgar) to say instead "one of the leading British composers of his generation". What does everyone else think? Alfietucker (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Alfie, for your summary of the situation and for your suggested solution. Per Tony: I don't see that mentioning the two in the same breath in the lead is "trumpeting", as you call it, it's merely an observation that helps to put Tippett into perspective among recent English composers. I am frankly surprised that you should accuse me of resorting to "unsourced gossip" in preparing articles; I do have higher standards than that. As I have said, though, the article is not intended to provide a comparison between Tippett and Britten. To bring an end to this discussion I am prepared to remove the words "with his contemporary Benjamin Britten" from the first paragraph, and to adopt Alfie's "of his generation" format, if that will meet your objection. Brianboulton (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even happy with the "muted affair"—gives undue weight, wrong impression. Heck, the 250th anniversary of JS Bach's death was a muted affair ... amazingly so. Tony(talk) 13:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is an important aspect of Tippett that the near-veneration he enjoyed in the latter part of his life eroded after his death. The rather underwhelming centenary celebrations were a reflection of this. What "wrong impression" are you suggesting is given by the brief mention in the lead? Incidentally, do you intend interacting with above discussion, which is an attempt to resolve your "Britten and Tippett" concern? Brianboulton (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
I'm not entirely sure "in 1996 he broke his retirement to write "Caliban's Song" as a contribution to the Purcell tercentenary" is sufficient to support "active into his 90s" in the lead, although technically correct
Check alphabetization of Sources
Be consistent in whether you disambiguate short cites by the same author using date or title. If the latter is chosen, Gloag's chapter titles should use quotes not italics
FN80: page range is unabbreviated here, abbreviated elsewhere
Ridout: check wikilinking
Check formatting of quote marks within titles
Collisson or Collinson?
FN162: which Whittall?
No citations to Ford, Venn. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All the above fixed – thanks for your diligence. In the caption, "active" means in the general sense, rather than strictly compositional, e.g. he still got around, went to festivals etc. He even travelled to Stockholm a couple of months before his death. So I think the term is probably justified. Brianboulton (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few niggles:
"So God ..." box. Is the quoted text significantly indented for other people too, or is it just a quirk of my browser?
It's far too much indented (three colons). I was going to bring this up in the review I'm preparing, too. --Stfg (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Newton Park snow pic: is it really sufficiently relevant to include. It's a pity there are so few free pics related to Tippett.
It is, I agree, only marginally relevant. The problem is the shortage of relevant free images. I personally think this one does no harm, but I would not fight for its retention. Brianboulton (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
String Quartet No. 1: is that meant to be in italics? And later, "Fifth String Quartet"; could the naming be regularlised?
The basis for italiciastion I've used, I think consistently, is to italicise descriptive titles such as The Rose Lake or Variations on a theme of Corelli, but to leave unitalicised titles which are a numbered common genre, e.g. Symphony No 1, String Quartet No 1 etc. There are a few borderline instances, and I may have slipped up once or twice. As to "String Quartet No 1" versus "First String Quartet", I find that sources use these formats interchangeably, perhaps to vary the prose, and I have followed in their footsteps. Brianboulton (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Tippett could have studied with Ralph Vaughan Williams, but decided against this because he thought this would lead him into imitation of his distinguished teacher, rather than towards finding his own voice."—Is the distinguished teacher referred to actually Vaughan Williams, that is, the one he didn't study under? I'm confused.
I have amended the note: "Tippett could have studied with Ralph Vaughan Williams, but decided against this because he thought that study under so distinguished a teacher would lead him to imitation rather than towards finding his own voice."
Is it both Clarke and Kemp (refs 35 and 121) whose idea it was to divide his output into three stages, as used below to structure the text about his works? I don't get a sense at the start of each of these "period" sections of of text that the rationale for the discontinuity is explained. For example, "The 1960s marked the beginning of a new phase in which Tippett's style became more experimental, reflecting both the social and cultural changes of that era, and the broadening of his own experiences." doesn't quite ring true to me ... there were plenty of experiments before then. The Triple Concerto (1972)—which "period" does this fall into? It has moments of extraordinary lyricism; it is very experimental in some ways; and in conception I'd say it harks beck to the triple concertos of previous centuries, particularly Brahms's.
Clarke specifically divides the output into three phases; Kemp, writing in the early 1980s, doesn't say much about the post 1976 compositions, though he marks the break of the late 50s–early 1960s. The "great divide" circa 1960 is marked in various sources, as is the return to lyricism late in the composer's career. But the dividing lines are not absolute, hence the reference to "fluid boundaries" – this acknowledges that Tippett certainly experimented before the 1960s and wrote lyrical episodes in every phase of his career. Brianboulton (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article describes the "general characteristics" of his music, but nowhere is there a description of the hallmarks of his music style—his harmonic language, counterpoint, rhythm, scoring, formal structures, textural devices. This is not something that WP's composer articles are strong on; but now is a good time to think about it. Groves Dictionary is better at this. Tony(talk) 13:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the last point, I think that a comparison with the ODNB article is perhaps more apposite than that with Grove. The Grove Online article (Clarke) was written with a particular readership in mind – music scholars or students. Much of it is incomprehensible to the general reader (sample text: "That of the Double Concerto (ex.1) draws its intervallic profile from the pentatonic collection E–F♯–A–B–D, or transposed fragments of it. The set in its various transpositions confers a unifying tendency on the work as a whole, symptomatic of a symphonic conception..." – there is much more of that ilk). I have always sought in my WP music biographies to describe the composer's music in terms that the general reader can understand, not to get bogged down in technical descriptions. The links to scholarly articles, and the identification of expert sources, are there to assist the discriminating reader in studying further. Brianboulton (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, thanks for your responses and edits. Yes, defining the style is a hard task. I have Kemp open in front of me, and it's not easy to extract something that useable. Nevertheless, it would be possible to give musical readers (not specialists) a general feeling for the character of his music – the rhythmic features, including metrical instability; the reasonably high level of harmonic dissonance and, in places, the use of bitonality; the dramatic use of modulation; the expansive character of his melodies; the use, in some works, of classical forms. Stravinsky isn't named as an influence, but the seminal Second Symphony owes an awful lot to his neoclassical period. The way the symphony closes with the augmentation of the opening idea seems to have come from Stravinsky's Symphony in C, and although derivative in a sense, is beautifully handled. Surely someone has written about this. Tony(talk) 07:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent scholarly discussion of Tippett's symphonies is Edward Venn's essay in the 2013 Cambridge Companion. He acknowledges the Second Symphony's debt to Stravinskian neoclassicism, without referring specifically to the latter's Symphony in C. I agree that Stravinsky should be mentioned in the influences, and beyond that I will add some material to the "General character" section to further explain Tippet's music in terms of rhythm, metre, bitonality etc. It may be a day or two before I get to this, as I have first to tackle the remainder of Stfg's objections on which I am presently working. Brianboulton (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added a couple of paragraphs to the "General character" section, along the lines indicated above. Together with the preceding paragraphs, and the "Influences" section which follows, I think these details give general readers a reasonable feel for the nature of Tippett's music, and something of the philosophy behind it, in language that will not completely defeat them. I have also added Stravinsky to the influences – bad omission, that. Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Stfg
Disclaimer: I've only reviewed what's in the article itself, and mainly for the quality of writing. I haven't carried out spot checks of sources for verification and proper paraphrasing.
The article is well on its way to featured standard, with an especially good coverage of Tippett's life. However, I feel that the prose has some way to go. For me there are two or three showstoppers and quite a large number of details to fix. So, although I hope to move to support before review time is up, it's oppose for now.Support The article is an excellent read, and I'm happy that all the points I raised below are dealt with. --Stfg (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Major points:
The whole Works section is too much of a quote farm. Quotes need to give information, not merely a stream-of-consciousness impression. An example of a good one is "gift for launching a confident flow of sharply characterized, contrapuntally combined ideas", which tells us something about Tippett's style. A few examples of verbiage and drivel are:
"strongly structured, richly textured and intensely expressive"
"one of the supreme musical-theatrical creations of our bruised and battered century"
"[o]ne could not easily bear a plethora of performances, for the work burns too deeply" (and by the way, in that one there's a line wrap after [o] on my display: you need to use {{nobreak}} if you do this kind of thing)
"I long to hear this stirring, paining, interrogating, always compelling music many times and as often as possible"
and there are plenty more. All the quotations really need going over to see which could be paraphrased.
The severe over-use of semicolons, which badly disrupt the reading experience. I'm wondering if this is an epidemic in WikiProject Classical Music, since I've seen it before, and at least two other editors have commented on it. Good uses of semicolons are listed at Semicolon#Usage (which gives clearer and better guidance than WP:SEMICOLON, imo). Good uses in this article include all three lists of elements that themselves have structure, and perhaps the sentence "Both of these works show influence of folk music; the finale of the Piano Sonata is marked by innovative jazz syncopations.", where there is some balance between the two halves. But things like "His farewell took the form of three concerts which he conducted at the new Royal Festival Hall; the programmes included A Child of Our Time, the British premiere of Carl Orff's Carmina Burana, and Thomas Tallis's rarely-performed 40-part motet Spem in alium." have no merit at all. They serve merely to distract the reader from the content to the writing, and thus to arouse suspicion that the writer is showing off. The semicolon expresses no useful nuance -- and nuance should anyway be expressed with words and syntax, not with punctuation, for reasons of accessibility. There are zillions of examples like this in the article.
There are also some plain incorrect commas, though they are less irritating. For example, "in 1983 Tippett became president of the London College of Music, and was appointed to the Order of Merit" is wrong, because this is just two things, and you don't put commas in lists of two. (I corrected that one and a few others, but there are dozens more.) Also, the article is not yet completely consistent as to whether or not it uses serial commas.
The comment on commas is still my view, but it has been fairly challenged by Tony, and I don't want us to get bogged down with it here. So I've struck it, and it won't be an obstacle to stop me moving to support when the other comments are addressed. --Stfg (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Detailed comments: Not bothering to strike all these -- too tedious -- but I think everything has been dealt with but one, which I'll add at the end. --Stfg (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lede:
"were enamoured of" is verbose -- welcomed?
"the communist cause" likewise -- communism?
Family background
why is "Liberal" capitalized? (if it's the party, then worth wikilinking)
"at Trafalgar Square" -> "in Trafalgar Square"
suffragism/suffragette duplicated link
Childhood and schooling
"when Tippett and another boy played, on pianos, Bach's C minor Concerto for Two Harpsichords with a local string orchestra": a less awkward word order would be "when Tippett and another boy played Bach's C minor Concerto for Two Harpsichords on pianos with a local string orchestra". Also, see Harpsichord concertos (J. S. Bach)#Concertos for two harpsichords. Both BVW1060 and BVW1062 are in C minor. Do we know which one this was? If so, we could wikilink it.
Unfortunately the source does not specify which it was. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Royal College of Music
"Rather than continuing to study for a doctorate, Tippett decided to leave the academic environment at that point": the last 3 words are redundant.
No, the "Oxted and Limpsfield Players" is the name of a theatrical group. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
False start
Duplicate link to Stanford.
Friendships, politics and music
"Its first public concert was held on 5 March 1933; the venue was Morley College, later to become Tippett's professional base." Choppy, even disregarding the semicolon. Better: "Its first public concert was held on 5 March 1933 at Morley College, later to become Tippett's professional base."
I changed the width of the quote box from 180px to 18em. Setting the width in pixels interacts badly with user font size settings. I hope that's all right.
I don't think the camps were actually "in" Boosbeck, a small mining village. Sources use "at" or "near" – I think that "near" is probably most appropriate. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"In October 1934 Tippett and the South London Orchestra performed at a centenary celebration of the Tolpuddle Martyrs, within a grand Pageant of Labour at the Crystal Palace." -- "within" reads quite strangely here -- "as part of"?
A Child of Our Time
"Using a three-part structure based on Handel's Messiah, Tippett took the novel step of using North American spirituals in place of the traditional chorales that punctuate oratorio texts." (a) In what sense is the structure "based on" that of Messiah? Lots of things have three-part structures. (b) It's a bit confusing, because Messiah doesn't have chorales. Maybe we need two separatye sentences here?
As the Child article explains: "The text that Tippett prepared follows the three-part structure used in Handel's Messiah, in which Part I is prophetic and preparatory, Part II narrative and epic, Part III meditative and metaphysical." I didn't think that level of detail was necessary in this article, but I can add it if necessary. I think your (b) confusion might be mitigated by replacing "Using" with "Within". Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The spirituals provide, according to Kenneth Gloag's commentary on the work, 'moments of focus ...'" is a bit bumpy. Better: "According to Kenneth Gloag's commentary on the work, the spirituals provide 'moments of focus ...'"?
"Alfred Deller, the counter-tenor, ..." -> "the counter-tenor Alfred Deller ..."
A small point, but the problem with that format is that it creates undivided blue, while my format separates the links with "the".
"rarely-performed" no hyphen
"tenor voice" -> just "tenor"
"arranged some of the music into a concert suite" -> "... as a concert suite"
King Priam and after
"the village High Street at Corsham in Wiltshire" : in or of, not at
"of" sounds wrong, as does "in the village High Street in Corsham in Wiltshire". I have simplified to "In 1960 Tippett moved to a house in the Wiltshire village of Corsham,
"a 'great divide' in Tippett's music, between the works ..." : "in Tippett's music" is redundant
Wider horizons
"further afield, " redundant
"Tippett had maintained his pacifist beliefs, while becoming generally less public in expressing them, and since 1959 had been president of the Peace Pledge Union." why had (both times)?
Changed to: "Tippett maintained his pacifist beliefs, while becoming generally less public in expressing them, and from 1959 served as president of the Peace Pledge Union." Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Later life
"His libretto has been criticised for its awkward attempts at American street vernacular,[97] and has not found a place in the general repertory" -> "His libretto has been criticised for its awkward attempts at American street vernacular,[97] and the opera has not found a place in the general repertory"
"This is an attempt, in Tippett's words, to ..." -> "In Tippett's words, this is an attempt to ..." because the quote, not the attempt, is in Tippett's words.
"At home, " redundant.
Duplicate link to gamelan.
General characterics
Arnold Whittall sees the music as embodying Tippett's philosophy of "ultimately optimistic humanism",[106] reflecting a century, Kemp recalls, of "two world wars, a rape of civilised values more horrible and protracted than had ever been known before. -- This looks like synthesis. Did either Tippett nor Kemp say the whole thing?
I have rewritten the above in a simplified form. Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Works
"formal compositional career" -- formal?
The sources refer to his "official" canon, which I think is probably worse. I have changed "formal" to "acknowledged". Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have varied as much as I can – "says", "writes", "according to..." etc. It is the curse of having to attribute statements and opinions. Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate links to Symphony No. 1 and Symphony No. 2
I think the duplicated links are allowable. The earlier links are some way back, in the "Life" section, and readers of the "Music" section might find these useful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second period: King Priam to 1976
Duplicate links to The Knot Garden, The Ice Break and The Times
Per above, but this soes not apply to The Times. Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review. I have worked through your "Detailed comments", and except where I have indicated, you can take it that I have adopted your suggestion or something very similar. Tomorrow I will work on the semicolons and other punctuation issues, before tackling the quotes. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stfg, mostly very good points, but I think you're a little severe ("verbiage and drivel"?). Brian's a first-class writer, although of course needs feedback and correction like the best. I don't quite agree with some of your suggestions/criticisms, such as the removal of the comma after "and". Tony(talk) 07:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reading them, Tony. I comment on the writing, not on the writer (and naturally my comments -- and writing efforts -- need feedback and correction just as much). "Verbiage and drivel" applies to what is inside those quotes, of course, not to Brian's writing. Your comment about commas surprises me a lot. I suspect that a discussion of commas with "and" could run and run, and we should try not to bog down a FAC review with it. Do you want to have that discussion? Where? --Stfg (talk) 09:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add: I don't feel in the least that the "verbiage and drivel" comment was aimed at me, rather than at the quotes themselves. I had a quiet chuckle – we should not take ourselves, or our subjects, too seriously. Over-reliance on verbatim quotations, particularly when they are plucked from context, is a fault for which I have often taken editors to task when reviewing, and I am happy to accept the criticism here and to remedy it. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For Stfg:
I believe I have responded to your concerns as expressed above:
See my individual replies to your "detailed comments"
Thank you. Yes, I agree with all those except, perhaps, "acknowledged compositional career". I see what you're getting at, but it rings a bit strange. Is "mature compositional career" anywhere nearer? --Stfg (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have reduced the semicolon count by about 75 per cent. A few remain, which I think are justified – please let me know if you think otherwise. I admit that a preoccupation with semicolons has tended to infect my prose style since my college days, despite my attempts to curtail it. I shall look closely at a forthcoming TFA (9th November)
I have reduced the number of direct quotations in the "Works" section by over half, concentrating particularly those you might describe as "drivel". I believe the balance between quotation and paraphrase is now about right. I have kept the odd drivelly one in, as I don't wish to deprive our esteemed sources of all colour in their expression. So Bowen's "bordello" comment stays in, as does Henehan's acerbic dismissal of New Year, and I have tended to retain Tippett's own words. Let me know what you think. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it reads like your own account rather than a pot-pourri now, and what Tippett himself said is, of course, worth keeping. I've moved to support now. --Stfg (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the time and trouble you have taken with this article which I believe has, as a result, improved significantly. Thanks, too, for the support. I'll continue to look for an alternative to "acknowledged compositional career". The trouble with "mature" is that he withdrew all his compositions before the First String Quartet - that was the first work that he "acknowledged" to be within his canon. It's a tough one. Brianboulton (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there may not be a completely natural way to say that part of his compositional career when he wrote the works he didn't withdraw :) The context is "After the withdrawn works written in the 1920s and early 1930s, analysts generally divide Tippett's acknowledged compositional career into three main phases, ...". In that context, would "the remainder of Tippett's compositional career" do it? Or even, since we're discussing his work, just "the rest of Tippett's output"? --Stfg (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed "acknowledged" to "mature", which is a bit risky as he was 30 at the time. But musically he was a late starter, so I think the word can be justified, and it probably raises fewer questions than "acknowledged". Brianboulton (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This now looks very good to me. Brian and others have done a lovely job. Tony(talk) 06:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
Perhaps as a military history editor I'm a bit jaded but I always tend to think it's unnecessary to link such a broad and (presumably!) well-known topic as Second World War...
I noticed half a dozen duplinks to various works and concepts -- was that deliberate given the article's organisation?
Hi, Ian. I have delinked both world wars (I agree not necessary). The duplicate links were deliberate; it's my practice to re-link works mentioned in the music section, as often in composer biographies this section is studied separately from the "Life" section. I note I have missed a couple of repeat links, and I will attend to these. Brianboulton (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Brian, that's all fine. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): EliasZ 16:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it now meets FA requirements. -EliasZ 16:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - (note) Previous reviews (GA, first FAC, PR) can be found under "Law School of Beirut" with uppercase "School". The article has been moved to lowercase "school" due to MOS naming concerns (see article talk). GermanJoe (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have already reviewed this article at its previous FAC, which included an image check and source spotchecks. Most of this issues I identified were dealt with at the time, and the remaining issues have been dealt with subsequently. When I read the article now, I am gratified to see that the prose is much improved throughout. I review it according to the featured article criteria:
1a. Yes, the prose is well-written and of a professional standard. Little of the prose could be called "brilliant", but it is accurate and engaging, without stylistic errors or undue clunkiness.
1b. Yes, the article is broad. It neglects no major facts about the school, and it places the subject in context.
1c. Yes, it is well-researched. It uses high-quality reliable sources, and spot-checks verify the claims made.
1d. Yes, it presents the topic fairly and without bias.
1e. Yes, the article is stable.
2a. Yes, the lead section conforms to our MOS. I feel like the prose in the lead could be improved, but it does fairly summarize the article.
2b. Yes, it is well organized, with an appropriate structure.
2c. Yes, the citations are consistently formatted.
3. Yes, All images are legitimately free, and all required information is present. All images are relevant, and captions are appropriate.
4. Yes, the length is appropriate. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail, and it uses summary style.
Support. I believe this article passes all our featured article criteria. – Quadell(talk) 17:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support and comments from Jim Just a couple of minor points Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Iulia Augusta Felix — worth saying who she was?
Named after Julia the Elder, info added in a note
Rhetoric — link?
First instance of the word is already wikilinked (rhetorician)
Digest — seems to be italicised in its own article
Digest is the anglicization of Digestorum or Digesta, I don't know why it's italicized in the other article. -EliasZ 05:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support So happy with this article's improvement. I commend Eli! Awesome effort. ceranthor 20:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to supportComments: This looks to be an excellent piece of work overall. The prose looks good, albeit a little dry in places, but that is probably unavoidable given the subject. I'm not a subject expert, but the coverage seems good and other than my few general queries below, there is nothing obviously missing. I will be happy to switch to full support once my minor queries are answered. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing: I did wonder if the sources were representative, but I'm reassured by the nominator's replies to a query in the previous FAC. Did Cynwolfe ever respond to that? Generally, I think that if modern sources refer to Collinet, then that is fine, but it might be reassuring to quote from one of them, even if just to say that everyone defers to him, and he remains the authority.
I have spent a lot of time coupling Collinet references with other modern scholar's work, there remains only a few instances where I haven't done this. I would have done the same for the others but I don't have much time. I believe Collinet's authority is already established. -EliasZ 19:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The pedant in me wonders if a note should be added to establish his authority for the simple reason that someone is certain to question why we are using such an old source, and it can be good to head off criticism. However, that is my own view and does not remotely affect my support. I am happy his authority is established. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
”The earliest written mention of the school dates to 239 CE, when its reputation had already been established”: The lead says that its reputation was established in 239, but the main body merely states that it was mentioned at that date.
”After arriving in Beirut, these were translated into Greek, published and archived”: In this context, what does published mean?
I would've used other words but "disseminate" sounds like we're talking about something infectious, I also find "distribute" lacking and diminutive. Basically what they did back then was reproduce the edicts by copying, posting and distributing them, it's kinda like the modern sense of publishing. I think it's pretty clear :S-EliasZ 19:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how obvious this would be to modern readers, and my favoured phrasing would be something like "copied and distributed". But again, I am not insisting and this does not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
”In the fourth century, the Greek rhetorician Libanius reported that the school attracted young students from affluent families and deplored the school's instructional use of Latin, which was gradually abandoned in favor of Greek in the course of the century”: Is it worth saying why Greek was favoured? And similarly in the curriculum section.
Greek was the dominant language in the mediterranean even after centuries of Roman rule, Koine Greek was introduced by Alexander and the Romans were tolerant and even favored the use of Greek especially in the learning circles. I left a small notion in the curriculum paragraph. -EliasZ 13:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
”and was the only school, along with Beirut's, to be maintained after Justinian I closed those of Alexandria, Caesarea Maritima and Athens in 529 CE”: The obvious question is why? Perhaps a sentence could be added to avoid making the reader follow links?
”The law school was not reopened, and all prospect for its return was abandoned with the Arab conquest in 635 CE.”: We say what happened to the buildings in Beirut, but is there any more detail about what actually happened to the institution in Sidon at the time of the conquest?
After the conquest there was very few written materials referring to the coastal cities of Phoenicia :( -EliasZ 13:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the curriculum section, the paragraph beginning “Little is known about the curriculum before the fifth century…” may be better placed at the beginning of that section. From what is said in that paragraph, I presume the preceding paragraphs give details of what was studied after the Justinian reforms. So it may be worth beginning with that section which says we know little about the curriculum before this date. If the first two paragraphs are just about general methods, perhaps this should be explicitly stated.
Yup :S, fixed-EliasZ 14:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Why did Justinian make his reforms and get so involved? Is anything known (or more likely, speculated)?
Justinian was not only an emperor but also the only leader of the church since there wasn't any other strong leaders. Justinian's meddling in the affairs of the city, his move to shut down schools where pagan ideas were being taught and the adoption of christian dogmas in the law school of beirut (maybe out of an act of self-preservation) should be viewed from this context. Unfortunately i haven't found any sources yet directly stating (or speculating) his motives for interfering with the affairs of the school -EliasZ 13:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if an explanatory note could be added, but I appreciate you may consider it off-topic, and will go with your view. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should the last section be renamed to “Reputation and legacy”, as the first part of the section is not really about its legacy?
good idea, done EliasZ 13:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
”The Ecloga was a shortened and more philanthropic version of the Codex of Justinian, whose dispositions were more in tune with Christian values.”: Could we give an idea of what this meant practically? Sarastro1 (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone off topic enough by adding this much detail about the evolution of the Justinian Codex at the request of an editor in a previous FA nomination. the link to Ecloga leads to a small paragraph in the Byzantine law article. I will be happy to develop an article about it later on but this level of detail is already too much here.-EliasZ 13:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: My concerns were fairly minor, and I am happy with the nominator's responses. An impressively authoritative piece of work, well done. One minor point which does not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Justinian's Omnem constitution at the beginning of the Digest is the only source of information about the existing study system in the fifth century until the Justinian reforms of 533 CE.": Can we avoid using "Justinian" twice in the same sentence? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks -EliasZ 04:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it has received a copyedit from a member of the Guild of Copyeditors, it has passed a good article nomination, and I believe that it meets the featured article criteria. Neelix (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:9.000919_Pattaya_streetscene5.jpg: wouldn't this be licensed as a US government work, if it was created for the State Department? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I have replaced the licence tag on that image. Neelix (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as prior GA Reviewer. The article is educational, encyclopedic, and quite well referenced. — Cirt (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT - I found this to be an interesting and informative read. With specific attention to the FA criteria, this is a well-written compelling article, relying on a wide variety of consistently-formatted reliable sources that support comprehensive coverage of the subject. I don't detect any shortcomings in the article's breadth, and find its structure in keeping within the guidelines of the MOS and other relevant policies. The article is presented without any concerns regarding neutralty or stability. I have not checked the images myself, but being familiar with Neelix's other work, deferring to Nikkimaria's keen eye in image reviews (which appears above), and that the article has gone through a copy-edit and GA prior to FAC, I am confident that the images are likely sufficiently tagged, and previously cleared. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as earlier copy editor I found the article to be well written, well presented, well researched and the subject to be of interest and informative. - Iztwoz (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Nothing oppose worthy. Some comments though -
I think it needs to be made explicit that Movieguide is a site "dedicated to redeeming the values of the entertainment industry, according to biblical principles" and not a generalist movie site. While this perspective may be immediately obvious from publications such as Godculture Magazine, it's not so for Movieguide.
Can you comment on the reliability of Godculture Magazine and The Phantom Tollbooth?
What is You Are Beautiful: A Journey of Discovery used to source? If it's just that Nolot is the founder and president of Exodus Cry, can't you just use a primary source instead?
Thank you for your comments. I have clarified that the Pattaya photograph is not a scene from the film, made explicit the nature of Movieguide, replaced the You Are Beautiful source with a primary source, and specified that The Rome International Film Festival is in Rome, Georgia. I believe that Godculture Magazine and The Phantom Tollbooth are both reliable sources; both magazines have writers and editors on staff to ensure journalistic integrity. If you have specific concerns regarding these sources, I would be glad to look into them for you. Neelix (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article is very well-written and appears to meet FA criteria. There's just one thing that I think is a little strange: the "Contents" section makes reference to "groups of girls who appear to range in age from early to late teens offering sexual services to customers, many of whom are middle-aged, white Western men". I watched the documentary a week ago and don't recall there being any specific attention drawn to the clients' ethnicities or countries of origin, so this seems more like a personal observation than one made by the producers. --1ST7 (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support and comments. I have removed the final clause from the sentence you mention. Neelix (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Some problems can be fixed easily: the quotations without sources; prose such as "in the spring of 2012, on May 1".
On criterion 1a. From first para of "Contents"... "implicitly naked" (what does "implicitly" mean here?); "One girl is seen to be dragged" (why "seen to be"?); "The girls are then brutally abused" (isn't what has happened up to then brutal? What is the brutal bit? Is this happening to the people remaining in the room after one has been taken out?); "markets in Berlin" (what kind of markets?); "Among legal prostitution in cities, the slavery goes unnoticed" (should be "amidst"? Why is it classed as slavery? This is the first main text mention of "slave"). There is also the contradiction of "The first scene of the film is a re-enactment of a kidnapping" with "The film starts with the assertion that slavery has not been abolished" in "Analysis".
I question the use of "girls" throughout – are they women (as defined by laws) or girls? How is the reader to distinguish when "girls" refers to those under a certain age?
The problem that cannot be fixed with ease is the structure. The first section is "Contents". Next is "Production", with the sub-heading "Interviews". Interviews describes more content, so is not about production. Inevitably, there is repetition across the sections. Some parts appear to be unconnected to the surrounding text; for instance: "Before Nefarious was completed, one of the former prostitutes interviewed for the film returned to prostitution" is in "Filming"; and "Kevin Bales of Free the Slaves argues that there are 27 million slaves in the world" isn't connected to anything. "Analysis" begins with a description of what the film is about; as this is after whole sections describing the film, most of it could go in an introductory section.
The smaller things (as in the criterion 1a bit above, on one para) could be fixed, but could take a long time. However, the structure – of both the article as a whole and within sections of it – needs a rethink before desired levels of cohesion and coherence are reached. EddieHugh (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for voicing your concerns. I have added supplementary citations directly after every citation, reworded some of the prose for clarity, removed the words "seen to be", specified that the markets being referred to are sex markets, switched "among" to "amidst", clarified that people who are kidnapped and then forced into labour are slaves, and clarified that the starting assertion does not take place at the very beginning of the film. I have also restructured the article by moving the "Interviews" subsection to the "Contents" section, moving the "Analysis" section to the beginning and renaming it "Themes", moving the statement about the interviewee to the "Interviews" subsection, and clarifying that Kevin Bales appears in the film. The words "girls" and "women" both appear in the article in different contexts, although most of the human trafficking victims dealt with in the film (particularly in Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe) are too young to be considered adults, so the word "girls" appears most commonly. I believe that the correct word is used in each case, but I would be glad to look further into any particular instance you find problematic. Are there any remaining structural, prosaic, or other issues you would like me to address? Neelix (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that I didn't address your question about the statement "implicitly naked". This was the solution reached on the article's talk page to the seeming contradiction between there being no nudity in the film despite the film starting by depicting a group of naked girls. It is clear that they are naked, but there are no breasts or pelvic areas shown on-screen. If you can think of a clearer way of phrasing this, I am open to recommendations. Neelix (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the phrasing used right now is fine; there isn't really a better alternative, as simply describing them as naked would seem contradictory to the text that says that the documentary contains no nudity. As a side note, I noticed that the "Re-enactments and live footage" section describes the events in the opening scene as taking place "in a small European town, possibly in Moldova", but the trafficking victim narrating the incident says it was an apartment building near Belgrade, Serbia (seen here). Can this please be fixed? --1ST7 (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the location error; I have corrected this statement and moved the information about Moldova to the "Themes" section. Neelix (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the changes: I think that the structure is much more logical now. "ordered to remove their clothes" instead of "implicitly naked"? Remove contractions ("didn't").... Having followed up some of the sources, my major concern comes from a combination of the niche nature of the topic (a Christian documentary) and time since it was released. Specifically, in relation to the FA criteria: 1b) "places the subject in context" – how does Nefarious compare with other documentaries, etc. on the same topic (from a Christian perspective and any other)? To what extent has this topic been explored on film previously? 1c) This is tricky, because almost all of the lit cited is faith-based, so has an interest in being positive about the film. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about WP policy on this could step in with a more informed comment, perhaps on interpreting WP: BIASED. I am definitely wary of the implicit level of assumption about the film's claims being accurate. E.g., para 3 of "Themes" runs through lots of 'facts', which are sourced from reviews of the film citing the film. Take the CIA assertion... the source has "the third largest industry"; nj.com has "one of the largest criminal industries in the world — second only to drugs": industry or illegal industry? Simply adding "the film states that" or similar is not, in my opinion, sufficient for 1c or 1d. This leads to a combination of 1b, 1c and 1d objections: if the currently available sources are likely to view it favourably and repeat its assertions, and the film has been out for 2 years on a very limited release that is ongoing (according to its website), waiting for more independent sources to appear seems sensible before it can be claimed that the article "exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards". This is not a criticism of the proposer or others, but a suggestion that the required standard may be unattainable at the moment. EddieHugh (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that you approve of the new structure. I have reworded the statement about nudity, and have replaced the contractions. I have also added a Fox News article that cites the CIA statistic to confirm its accuracy. Please let me know if you have concerns about any of the other statistics cited in articles reviewing the film. Considering that the film was released two years ago, I think it unlikely that many additional non-faith-based sources are going to publish new reviews of the film. The contextual and non-faith-based reviews you are looking for seem unlikely to ever exist, although the film has received a variety of awards from non-faith-based film festivals, and these are documented in the article. I am under the impression that FA criteria 1 b-d are satisfied if the existing sources on the subject are exhaustively employed; that has been my experience with past FAs, such as with Kellie Loder and When God Writes Your Love Story. Perhaps your experience has been different than mine. Have you seen articles prevented from FA promotion because of a lack of existing sources providing an alternate perspective? Neelix (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd do go for all of the facts in that section. The two sources on the CIA do not really match: one has "human trafficking"; the other has "the sale of women". Taking the criteria literally, exhausting the sources is sufficient, but that is what I question, as the neutrality of those sources (as well as how well the topic can be covered by them) is debatable; so I asked for input from others. With the two you mention... Loder is clearly described as a "Contemporary Christian" musician, so I wouldn't expect much comment on her outside that area; WGWYLS is, I argue, a) a Christian book that is b) about love/relationships, so again I would not expect many sources from outside the Christian market. Nefarious, I suggest, is (or is presented as being) a) a film about trafficking that b) also incorporates a Christian angle. I would, therefore, expect to see more of what I mentioned in my previous post. EddieHugh (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have contacted Exodus Cry, the film's distributor, asking them if they would send me the citation information for the primary sources for the statistics included in the "Themes" section of the article. I have also requested that they let me know of any reviews of the film that are not already included in the article. At present, there are just as many secular reviews in the article's "Critical response" section as there are faith-based reviews; there are four secular reviews (Indian Life Newspaper, The News of Cumberland County, South China Morning Post, and The Review) and four faith-based reviews (Charisma, Movieguide, The Phantom Tollbooth, and Godculture Magazine). If you know of any more reviews of the film, I would be glad to include them; I am running out of places to look. Neelix (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have found primary sources for all but one of the statistics quoted from other organizations in the "Themes" section, and have added them to the article. The remaining statistic (the CIA one you mention) I have removed from the article until such point that the CIA primary source is discovered. I have scraped the bottom of the barrel of Google and have turned up five additional sources, which I have added to the article. Two of these (Star News Daily and News Weekly) are secular reviews which have been added to the "Critical response" section. I have searched through several journal databases through my local library and have turned up no new sources. A librarian helped me search, and told me that there are likely no other reviews to find. Please let me know if you feel that there is anything further that I can do to improve the article. Neelix (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neelix asked me for my thoughts (as I had supported the article earlier above) on your comments, Eddie, and I responded to him on my talk page. He asked if I'd copy them here. A couple of points:
The fact is that documentaries usually don't get much attention by film critics or reviewers. If there are no negative film reviews, citing positive reviews is not giving undue weight to positive reviews. By analogue: It's not undue weight to say the sky is blue during the day just because no source exists that says "it's green." See WP:RSUW.
If there are no negative reviews, then it is such criticism a non-existent viewpoint. There's no obligation to talk about negative criticism--in this case, that would violate WP:UNDUE by giving a platform to a viewpoint that doesn't exist.
If there's no source comparing it to other documentaries, there's no source. To start comparing it to other documentaries without sources making those comparisons would likely violate original research
This is about the one movie that is the subject of the article, while you can mention comparison to other films (if such discussion is supported by sources), however, it has to be kept within scope so as to not divert focus from the article's subject.
If you've covered all that's available about it, and there are no other sources that offer new angles or different angles, then it generally meets the 1b (comprehensive) and 1c (and representative survey of the relevant literature) criteria. You can't neglect a viewpoint if it doesn't exist. (again, WP:RSUW). If a viewpoint doesn't exist, 1b and 1c can't be held against you for not covering it.
Thanks for the comments. I don't disagree. Reducing to the absurd, if there were a tiny number of limited sources, a very short (but complete to the extent possible) article on any topic could be created. It would not become a FA (I'd hope). There is, therefore, a point at which the availability of source material limits how far an article can go in the grading system. The question here is whether or not Nefarious can reach FA quality using the sources available. In my opinion, as all sources have been used, it cannot. I'm happy to be contradicted / outvoted / outranked on this, but my opinion remains. EddieHugh (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your added clarification. My impression is that the point at which the limited availability of source material prevents an article from being featured is the same point at which such limited availability prevents an article from meeting the notability guidelines; a subject about which there does not exist a sufficient amount of sources to create a featured article does not merit an article at all. Neelix (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with the opinion that the sources are insufficient. The article's coverage appears comprehensive and includes both secular and faith-based sources. --1ST7 (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've read over the above exchange and revsited the article again. It appears that Neelix (talk·contribs) has indeed made a good faith effort to do his due diligence with regards to sourcing, and made sure to do his best with regards to exaustively using the majority of available secondary sources out there. The Accolades section appears to complement this and seems quite comprehensive and well-sourced, as well. I hope this reassessment was helpful, — Cirt (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have given this a fresh read-through and I now feel comfortable backing for FA. Well done Neelix. —Cliftonian(talk) 14:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will copyedit and post comments as I go through this. A few initial comments:
In "Themes", we say the film is presented from a Christian worldview, then mention that the movie has scantily dressed women, smoking and drinking in it. I don't quite understand why we mention the smoking—Paul mentions in his letters that Christians should dress modestly and avoid drunkenness, but there's nothing about smoking. How about "although there are scenes showing alcohol consumption and women wearing skimpy clothing."
Make clear that the "dollars" we're talking about are US dollars (I presume that's what they are)
Maybe split the second paragraph of the "Contents" section at "In another scene, Nolot interviews a Dutch pimp named "Slim"".
Maybe put "Who identifies himself as "Slim"", or similar
A lot of the captions are very similar to sections of the body; maybe mix it up a little for variety.
Move the picture of Laila Mickelwait down below the level 3 header "Official release"
Split the critical response into two paragraphs
I'll come back later and put more, and go on copyediting and so on. Well done so far. —Cliftonian(talk) 11:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your copyediting and suggestions. I have reworded the sentences in the "Themes" and "Contents" sections you indicate, implemented the US$ template, split up the paragraphs in the "Contents" and "Critical response" sections you indicate, reworded the image captions to differ from the body text, and moved the image of Mickelwait. I look forward to your additional comments. Neelix (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Nefarious: Merchant of Souls is a 2011 American documentary film about modern human trafficking, specifically sexual slavery, and explores the factors that contribute to it." This sentence doesn't make grammatical sense because of the last clause (and explores ...). Consider taking it away—I don't think it really adds anything.
"Information is presented from a Christian worldview. Nefarious covers human trafficking in the United States, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, and Southeast Asia. Interviews are alternated with re-enactments." Try "Presented from a Christian worldview, Nefarious covers human trafficking in the United States, Western and Western Europe, and Southeast Asia, alternating interviews with re-enactments".
The list of named interviewees in the middle of the first paragraph seems rather large and intrusive. Do you think it could be moved down to the second or third paragraph, perhaps, so the opening paragraph will be more crisp and concise? I think the start of the third paragraph might be a good place for this.
"Former victims" Why not "Victims of trafficking"? Make clear what they're victims of, and also I'm not sure "former" is needed. Perhaps change "about being the object of" to "about having been the objects of"
"and going on to do schooling or to get married" Perhaps "and moving on towards education or marriage"
"to 19 different countries" the word "different" is superfluous
"can be doing..." the ellipses should be spaced with a non-breaking space ("doing ...")
"Nefarious was released on home video on May 1, 2012." perhaps move this to the end of the second paragraph and change to "the film was released ..." as it is clear which film we are talking about
"in several different countries" see above
"analogous to" perhaps "similar to"
"that criminalizes" should be ", which criminalizes" (with a comma before "which"), as we are talking about a particular Swedish law rather than one of several
"Nefarious won" → "Nefarious has won"
In "Themes" maybe split the second paragraph at "It is suggested in Nefarious that there is a link ..."
I appreciate your additional recommendations. I have reworded the sentences you indicate, moved the list of named interviewees to the beginning of the third paragraph of the lead, reformatted the ellipses, moved the statement about the home video release date to the end of that paragraph, and split the paragraph you indicate in two. I look forward to your further comments. Neelix (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
"Nefarious was written, directed, produced, and narrated by Benjamin Nolot, founder and president of Exodus Cry, the film's distributor. Nolot, a leader in Mike Bickle's International House of Prayer, travelled to 19 countries to collect the film's content. Nolot said that the purpose of the film is "to draw people's attention to the issue, but also to inspire them in terms of what they can be doing ... to take a stand against this injustice.""
On review I think this bit might be better thus: "Nefarious was written, directed, produced and narrated by Benjamin Nolot, a leader in Mike Bickle's International House of Prayer]] and founder and president of Exodus Cry, the film's distributor. Nolot, who travelled to 19 countries to collect the film's content, said that the purpose of the film is "to draw people's attention to the issue, but also to inspire them in terms of what they can be doing ... to take a stand against this injustice.""
"The film was officially released on July 27, 2011, and individual screenings also began in various places through grassroots marketing"
Try "The film was officially released on July 27, 2011, with individual grassroots screenings also taking place".
"to convince governments to"
"Convince" should only be used in the form "convince that"—"convince to" isn't correct, but "persuade to" is. Recommend change to "to persuade governments to"
"wrote that it was amazing that the film covered an inherently sexual topic both honestly and without nudity"
Try "commented that the film covered the inherently sexual subject matter candidly without featuring nudity".
"and wrote that the film's narrative and structure are both apparent" er, what? Perhaps rephrase. I don't understand what is meant here.
Themes
"suggests that what victims have in common around the world is that they are enslaved both psychologically and emotionally"
Try "suggests that all the victims are both psychologically and emotionally enslaved".
"It is suggested in Nefarious that there is a link"
Try the simpler "Nefarious asserts that there is a link"
"many in Cambodia preparing their daughters to be sold as prostitutes in order to pay for luxury goods"
Try "with many in Cambodia knowingly selling their daughters into prostitution to pay for luxury goods"
"Nefarious depicts Las Vegas prostitutes as entering the sex industry in pursuit of a glamorous lifestyle, and most sex trafficking in Europe as resulting from child abandonment and orphanages"
Why not comment that the film is contrasting the two? "Nefarious contrasts Las Vegas prostitutes with victims of sex trafficking in Europe, depicting the former as drawn into the sex industry by dreams of a glamorous lifestyle, and the latter as young people made vulnerable by child abandonment and orphanages"
The bulk of the last paragraph of this section is very repetitive. "x asserts ... y asserts ..." Try:
The film presents human trafficking statistics and assertions from a variety of sources, prominently departments of the United States government and the United Nations. These include that human trafficking is growing faster than any other criminal industry, that the average age of those forced into prostitution in the U.S. is 13, that the commercial sexual exploitation of children victimizes almost two million children globally, that 80% of trafficked women and 50% of trafficked children are sexually exploited, that 161 UN member states engage in human trafficking, and that modern slavery has an annual revenue of US$32,000,000,000—according to the film, higher than the annual revenues of Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Football League and the National Hockey League combined."
Blaire Pilkington, Exodus Cry's Director of Intervention, stated that the film indicates that "trafficking is an exploitation of vulnerability" and expressed the need to "take away the stigma that [prostitutes] choose to be there."
"States" or "stated"? Is this statement in the movie or not?
Content—Re-enactments and live footage
"The photograph above was taken by the United States Department of State and depicts a similar situation." Try "This photograph, taken by the U.S. Department of State, depicts a similar situation."
I will copyedit the prose here directly, I hope you don't mind
Content—Interviews
I'm not sure what the second picture here adds if I'm honest.
I will also look over the prose here directly
"keep a hand close to the panic button" is this a quote? I assume this is figurative, or is there actually a panic button next to the mattress?
"Before Nefarious was completed, one of the former prostitutes interviewed for the film returned to prostitution." Is this in the movie, or is this just a comment on it? Clarify please
That's all for now, hope this helps. I will continue this review another time —Cliftonian(talk) 16:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for your helpful suggestions and copyedits. I have reworded the phrases you indicate, removed the statement about narrative, replaced the second image in the "Interviews" section with something more suitable, clarified that there is an actual panic button next to the mattress, and clarified that the fact that one of the former prostitutes returned to prostitution is included in the film. Neelix (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John, are you still planning on returning to this review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
Yes, thanks for the nudge; finishing now —Cliftonian(talk) 06:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Production
"an issue he feels very strongly about and which he feels to be of importance" Feel this is overkill, why not "an issue that he feels to be of great importance"
"Actors in these re-enactment scenes included ..." The list of names that follows here lacks an "and" before the last name
"As of January 2012, two sequels to the film were in production" By Nolot or other people?
Release
"... with one of the city's police officers" Why not just "with a local police officer"
"Red Light Campaign in which drivers pray for sex trafficking to end while they wait at red traffic lights" Try "Red Light Campaign, wherein drivers waiting at red lights pray for sex trafficking to end"
"agreed to attend" Why not just "attended"
"The Summit Church" Do we know the town?
"Nefarious was released on home video on May 1, 2012" In the U.S., North America or worldwide?
"its United Kingdom premiere" Sounds awkward, I would go with "UK premiere" or "British premiere"
"Following this screening," I would replace this with "following which" and merge it into the last sentence
"In November" Try "Two months later" to cut down on repetition; perhaps also move it to the end of the sentence
"solicited funds for halfway houses called LightHouses that it runs for former sex trafficking victims" Try "solicited funds for the halfway houses it runs in Moldova, LightHouses, where victims of sex trafficking are helped to recover." Or similar
Reception
Made some ce here
That's all, I think. I hope this helps. Now leaning to support. —Cliftonian(talk) 06:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing such a thorough review! I have reworded the phrases you indicate, clarified that Nolot is producing the sequels, and specified the location of The Summit Church. The source for the home release date doesn't specify the geographical extent of the release. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns. Neelix (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
A couple of spelling points: "fraudulant" may for all I know be a permissible spelling in US dictionaries, but I have only ever seen it as "fraudulent". And "materialises" looks strange in an article that otherwise uses "–ize" spellings.
There are many blue links that seem to me to come under the heading of WP:OVERLINK, for example, "attempted murder", "converting to Christianity", "grassroots", "home video", "profanity", "nudity", "slavery", "abolished", "political corruption", "complicity", "luxury goods", "glamorous", "child abandonment", "orphanages", "kidnapped", "organized criminals", "hard drugs", "mind control", "sexual and physical abuse", "soft light", "physically abusing", "threatening" … and so on and on and on. Some, such as "luxury goods" are even linked more than once. As the Manual of Style says, "Ask yourself, 'How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?'", and in the case of, e.g., "raising awareness", "prayer meeting", "filming locations", "social issues" et hoc genus omne the answer surely is, "Not at all". The MoS very rightly observes, "Excessive use of hyperlinks can be distracting, and may slow the reader down".
Hope these points are useful. – Tim riley (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I have corrected the spelling of the words you indicate and have reduced the overlinking in the article, removing the links you list as well as others. I have also used a tool to ensure that there are no duplicate links in the article. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns regarding the article. Neelix (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – This is a shorter article than one is used to seeing at FAC (and none the worse for that after some of the interminable articles about, e.g., Bollywood films we have had up for FA) but as far as I can see it covers all relevant points adequately, and it is in good prose, has no conspicuous bias and is well illustrated and referenced. It seems to me to meet the FA criteria. Tim riley (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- I realise a good deal of discussion has gone on re. breadth and quality of sourcing but I don't think I've seen a source review for formatting, so will request one at WT:FAC. On the subject of sourcing, I've read Eddie's comments with interest, but I think several other reviewers have provided arguments that rebut the concerns raised. I will however await the source review and any further comments from Cliftonian before considering promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source check
The references all seem to be formatted correctly. All names are formatted as "Firstname Lastname", all dates are formatted the same way, templates are used to prevent many problems, and I see no spacing or punctuation errors. My five spotchecks reveal the statements fully supported without plagiarism. – Quadell(talk) 19:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Maurice Leyland was a Yorkshire cricketer in the 1920s and 1930s. A rather unglamorous, but very well-loved figure, he was at his best against the toughest opponents. Atypically for a Yorkshire cricket from this period (no comments on this please, Mr Riley!), he was a cheerful and humorous chap. I've been working on this article since January, and since March it has been a GA. It received an excellent PR from Tintin1107, Crisco 1492, Tim riley, Cassianto, Sahara4u, Giants2008 and Brianboulton. Any further comments are gratefully received. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – All my comments were addressed at the peer review, and I am very happy to pledge my support. Another fantastic effort by the nominator, himself a flawless player in the field of cricket articles (pun, me, never!). -- CassiantoTalk 19:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your earlier comments, your kind words and your support. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Once again Sarastro1 conjures a thoroughly satisfying, highly readable article from the facts of a cricketer's life and career. Such a thing could so easily be a dull list of facts and statistics, but, as with Sarastro's earlier subjects, the reader gets a real sense of the man and his deeds. The prose is a pleasure, the research and referencing top-notch, the images well chosen and the balance and proportions of the article judicious. The article was in fine shape at PR and is even finer now. This is plainly of FA quality IMO. – Tim riley (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words, your help at the PR, and your support. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - my comments were addressed to my satisfaction at the PR. Another great article on someone whom I'd have never heard of otherwise. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work at PR, and for your support. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The story I have to tell is the same as the prior reviewers. I commented (briefly) at the PR, was impressed with the article when I read it, and firmly believe that it meets the standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - all OK (PD-Australia, PD-1996). Souces and known authors provided.
File:Leyland_batting.tiff - removed journal link to Wiki-article, as it was dead on Commons and not strictly necessary (not sure, where the link was supposed to lead to) - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the image check. That link came from the Trove site, which has it's own reference-for-wikipedia thing, and I was too lazy to change it! Sarastro1 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great work. --Carioca (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – This article has gotten a very good PR, and I think this is now one of the best article at Wikipedia. Great effort from Sarastro1! ZiaKhan 22:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the above supports. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Doesn't the lead, the first paragraph especially, get bogged down by figures—runs, averages and years? Also, I think any reader who's here for the stats heads straight for the infobox, where he can get them more succinctly. So these may be pointless here.
I've cut some stats from the first paragraph. Cut back on some of the years, but I feel they are necessary to tell the story. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even after I feel that there are too many specific years. For eg: "debut in 1920, and appeared intermittently in 1921 and 1922" → "debut in 1920, and appeared intermittently over the next couple of years" and so on.
This came up at PR, but the main sources (Cricinfo and Cricketarchive) give this as his style. I'd prefer to leave it, as he did bowl that style as well. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mention that he was a leftie.
Now mentioned in the lead. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"He scored over 1,000" → needs to connect with previous. "He returned to form..." for eg.
Reworked this a bit. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"batting well under pressure... thrived when the team depended upon him"—same thing? Then club aesthetic... to the first sentence itself.
"registered at birth as Morris Leyland,[notes 1]"—not a fan of this. Morris is used literally nowhere in the article. I think you remove both text and note, just have the note's text as a sentence in Early life and career.
Fair enough. No reason that this should not work, so adopted it. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should promote the sub-sections to full section status (and get rid of "Test match cricketer").
I actually prefer it with the subsections, as it makes it organisationally neater and I hate long TOCs with nothing to break them up. But maybe that's just me. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move Later life to before Style. Then you keep the historical sections together, and end on a positive note.
I'm sure there was a reason for the order I used, but can't remember it now, so swapped them around. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Word overuse: "effective" in Style. "described how he faced an over from O'Reilly, as described"
Add pics of people who pop up frequently—O'Reilly for eg.
O'Reilly is the obvious one, but despite its presence in a FA, and its location of Commons, I have grave doubts that the image of O'Reilly in our article is really PD. Similar for anyone else whose name crops up a few times. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"but enjoyed taking wickets"—A pointless sentence; who wouldn't enjoy picking up a wicket?!—User:Indopug (who has locked himself out of his account 122.164.232.131 (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be surprised: most of Leyland's team-mates, for one! (Evidence for the prosecution: Wilfred Rhodes and George Macaulay. Reworded to "enjoyed bowling". Sarastro1 (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, all sources look of reliable quality and correctly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source review. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I had plenty to say at the peer review, and my points were adequately answered. The only additional suggestion I have now is that you could avoid repeating the word "played" in the first line of the lead by saying that "he appeared for Yorkshire". Up to you. This is a cricketing biography of a standard that we have come to expect, and I am more than happy to support its promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help at the PR and your support. I switched the second "played" for "appeared". Sarastro1 (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). Appropriately sized intro sect per WP:LEAD. Good use of images throughout. Appropriate organizational structure, progresses nicely in chronological format for the reader. I like the style of presentation used for citations and references. As a side note I must remark that I am quite impressed at the level of participation and number of those involved both here at the FAC and previously at the article's Peer Review! FAC nominator, you must share your secrets on how you get such valuable input from other high-quality contributors! ;) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. I find begging, grovelling and pestering work wonders when looking for quality reviews! Sarastro1 (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and thanks, I'll take that into consideration in the future, — Cirt (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – My, this article is well organized and structured as well as researched and comprehensive. Excellent work my friend. JoeMeas (talk) 07:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Final comments from Indopug
"each English season between 1923 and 1939" the exact years aren't important IMO. Change to "16/17 consecutive seasons"?
"In first-class cricket, he represented Yorkshire"--technically only county cricket right? In FCC he represented both Eng and Yorkshire. (Unless this is standard usage)
I would say it's OK as it is, as it's generally taken to mean below Test level. Even cricketers aren't quite that pedantic! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did he die in Scotton (infobox) or Knaresborough (Later life)?
Scotton is more Knaresborough than Harrogate, so I've tweaked it. They are both the same place. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pics: Cardus? You could add another quote in the caption then . . .
No free pics of Cardus, I'm afraid. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography: book titles have inconsistent capitalisation?
I see what you mean. I think I got them, and removed the horribly long subtitle from the Bodyline book. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"He hit two sixes in one over"--amazing that this was once a notable achievement. (made me recall the awful just-concluded Ind v Aus series).
Ah yes, the days before bats were like railway sleepers and the boundary was a mis-hit away... Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And support Not often you see "expostulated" right next to "tha must remember that Ah'm playing for me place in team". Well done.122.164.155.143 (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and support. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because... Operation Crossroads was the first series of nuclear tests conducted in the Pacific. Although mostly remembered for a bathing suit, it is still the best known nuclear test after Trinity. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a massive article about a massively important topic. I hope to find time fully review it in the next week. Until then, I'll just give these drive-by issues. Review is ongoing.
Almost every Universal newsreel on Commons is incorrectly tagged. Universal placed its collection in the Public Domain back in 1976. I have corrected the tagging for this video, and left a note on Commons for the House Elf to go over the rest. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The final sentence (under "Legacy") has some problems. (1) When a semicolon joins independent clauses, everything after the semicolon should act as a complete sentence. (2) It would be helpful if each quote had its own citation. Currently they're together, and in reverse order. (3) It isn't clear what the text means by "coincidence", since the bikini was purposefully named after the test. I think it means that both explanations could be true, but there are better ways to put it. (4) Notwithstanding the previous point, "coincidence" is a common word and should not be linked. (5) "Perhaps" doesn't fit will grammatically, and I think it's acting as a weasel-word here. (6) It isn't immediately clear how "atom bombs reduce everybody to primitive costume". The source clarifies by discussing both half-naked islanders and people emerging from a bomb blast with torn clothes; either choice is amazingly distasteful, though that's not the article's fault. And (7) I personally think it would be useful to link "bikini swimwear"; it's previously linked way up in the nicknames section, but that's a long way back. – Quadell(talk) 18:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-worked the paragraph. For bad taste, the atomic explosion cake is hard to beat, but the fashion designers did their best. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the clause "Although there are claims that participants in the Operation Crossroads tests were well protected against radiation sickness". To aviod weasel words, consider rewriting it as "Although planners attempted to protect participants in the Operation Crossroads tests against radiation sickness". (There clearly were attempts, and some protective measures. But the article doesn't describe any claim that they were "well" protected.)
The noun phrase "immediate, concentrated local radioactive fallout" has four adjectives, but only one comma. That makes the sentence confusing to parse.
When a source is static publication that does not change (such as works with ISBNs or ISSNs, or scans of print magazines), they should not have "retrieved on" dates.
There's still some debate about the journals. But I don't see any problems here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article consistently uses the serial comma, which is appropriate. But the caption for the "Prospective Operation Crossroads target ships" image does not.
I moved the comma in this edit, since I think that would be more correct. – Quadell(talk) 13:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the lead is too short. It consists of three paragraphs, and the first is quite short. MOS:LEAD recommends "Three or four paragraphs" for articles with "More than 30,000 characters"; this article has more than 60,000 characters, not including the lead and end sections.
I've expanded the lead to four paragraphs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected in the expansion of the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really impressed with the comprehensiveness of this article, with the sourcing, and with the prose. If I identify a lot of prose issues, it's only because there's a lot of prose to check; most of it is great, and some of it is brilliant. Still, the sentence in the background section that begins "Commodore William S. 'Deak' Parsons" is too long and winding to be easily understood at the first reading. It should be split somehow.
Split the sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% sure how military titles are handled grammatically, so help me out here. Is this clause correct? "...by the Commander in Chief, United States Fleet, Fleet Admiral Ernest King at a press conference." Are there missing prepositions, or maybe a comma needed after Ernest King? I'm honestly not sure, but it looks funny to me.
Comma needed after "King". But I've re-worded the sentence instead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this sentence in the opposition section: "Manhattan Project scientists who had argued for a public test of the bomb in lieu of dropping it on a Japanese city now argued that further testing was unnecessary and environmentally dangerous." That sounds a bit like a "gotcha" to me, and smacks of bias (whether intentional or unintentional), as if the reader is supposed to think "Can't those scientist-protesters make up their minds?" I don't think it's fair to lead the witness in this way. Personally, I would reword it is "Several Manhattan Project scientists argued that, since the affects of nuclear bomb had been seen studied after their use in World War II, further testing was unnecessary and environmentally dangerous."
Agreed. These are two very different things. I think that people sometimes forget that that there was a difference between conducting Trinity in wartime, when people were taking risks and dying every day, and a peacetime test like Crossroads. Crossroads did raise a considerable doubts that a demonstration in 1945 would have had any effect on the Japanese, but this was anyone's guess in 1945. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few sentences down, in the phrase "When they complained that...", it isn't clear who "they" are. The phrasing adds to the perception that all opponents of the tests are being lumped together as "complainers". I think it could be better worded as "When objections arose that..."
Watch out for overlinking. Words like "oil, ammunition, and fuel" should not be linked, and I don't think the vulnerability article gives further useful information when linked from here, for instance. Please go through this article and, for each link, consider if the reader can be expected to already understand the term in the context of the article, and whether the linked article will provide further information which would help the reader better understand Operation Crossroads. So aircraft carrier and seaplane are useful links, but I don't think airplane is. Look carefully at links like seawater, emaciation, and goat; perhaps they are useful, but perhaps not.
I don't like the list at the top of the Preparation section. I think it could be more effectly rendered in prose. (Thematically, it can be grouped into requirements for isolation, for U.S. control, for anchorage needs, and for weather/water flow conditions.)
Very, very nice. – Quadell(talk) 12:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the word "destruction" would be more apt than "carnage" in "The main cause of less-than-expected ship carnage". "Carnage" almost always refers specifically to death and gore.
I would break up the sentence beginning "Many of the closer ships received", and the sentence beginning "Although the Able bomb missed its target" (both in Abel's "Radiation" section).
The direct quote beginning "... a large ship" seems to come out of nowhere. It would be better to say something like "In the assessment of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,".
The caption of Baker's target array lists the depths of two of submarines that sank: the Pilotfish and the Apogon. But it doesn't list the depth of the third submarine that sank: the Skipjack.
Consider this caption. "The Wilson cloud lifts, revealing a vertical black object, larger than ships in the foreground, which most observers believed was the upended battleship Arkansas. Blandy said it was smoke." It's true that Blandy said it was smoke, but Blandy also said radiation death is not painful. James Delgado (a much more credible commenter) says it was a rainshadow of sorts. I think the caption should be revised to something like the following, with the citation modified accordingly.
The Wilson cloud lifts, revealing a vertical black object, larger than ships in the foreground. Most observers believed this to be the upended battleship Arkansas, but other explanations have been offered.
I think "most observers" covers it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. – Quadell(talk) 12:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The prose says that Gilda (Able) missed her target by 710 yards. But the caption for Able's target array says the "intended bullseye" was the Nevada, and the chart says that Nevada was 615 yards from zero. Where did the other 95 yards go? (All this info is sourced to Delgado 1991.)
The first figure comes from Delgado, p. 86. The second comes from p. 87. The second refers to where the ship sank, which may differ. Altered the caption. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like an anon added a {{fact}} tag back on September 11 of this year. It ought to be dealt with. Is the info in Shurcliff 1947?
I could not find it, so I have removed it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Unfissioned plutonium" section says "The results of these plutonium detection tests, and of tests performed on fish caught in the lagoon, caused all decontamination work to be abruptly terminated...", but it doesn't say what the results were. You have to read down 7 paragraphs into the next section to confirm that yes, they found plutonium everywhere. There's no need for that kind of suspense. The explanation can be quite brief, but it should at least be mentioned that the test "[t]o see if this plan was working" showed that it was unambiguously not.
The article says "The local government elected to close the fly in, fly out, land-based diving operation". If the reader is not already familiar with the term, it isn't clear what this means (nor is it clear how to parse the sentence). A slight modification, and a link to Fly-in fly-out, should do the trick.
Image check: Every image is legitimately in the public domain, and all necessary information is provided. (While researching the copyright status of File:Admiral Blandy Mushroom Cloud Cake.jpg, I found an interesting fact: while the Wall Street Journal meticulously renewed the copyrights on every single issue, the Washington Post did not. I'll have to remember that. It could prove very useful.)
Seriously, the prose is great, and I'm not finding much to critique. I've made a number of minor changes (mostly commas) to improve the grammar or make the text clearer. Let me know if you disagree with any of these.
I modified the caption of the self-x-rayed fish. If my wording left out something important, let me know.
This is not required for Featured status, but in my opinion, it would be an improvement if the article had a footnotes section separate from the citations. Then the explanatory notes (20, 26, 95, etc.) could be given their own space.
Enthusiastic support. This article explains every facet of the subject in clear, understandable, brilliant prose. If there were pages, I would call it a page-turner. It passes all the FA criteria with flying colors, and is truly among the best Wikipedia has to offer. – Quadell(talk) 13:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support First I note that I have worked on this article before this FAR process. That said, I am very pleased with the recent improvements and agree with Quadell that it now meets FAC. --John (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Don't include quote-initial ellipses
Nitpicking, but be consistent in whether "p" and "pp" are followed by periods or not
Radio Bikini should be italicized
FN96 abbreviates page ranges, most footnotes don't
Check alphabetization of References
Be consistent in whether and when you include publisher locations, and for Washington specify DC
Verify publishing info for Oertling - is a Texas university press really in Canada? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They give their address as 1905 Ogden Avenue, Vancouver BC, Canada V6J 1A3 Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All points addressed Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
as Texas had done with its battleship might this be better phrased as: "As Texas had done with the USS Texas" with appropriate link?
What's an attack transport?
Generally, I'd prefer the ships involved to be named when they're mentioned rather than just a generic reference. I know that you have that nice list immediately following, but still...
The links in the caption for the Able target array are redundant.
, which could be lowered into the water by crane Is this important?
A number of ships sank during the war due to fires started by the onboard aircraft and its stores. So the aircraft are mentioned in the context of damage. Then an editor presumably thought that it might not be understood how they worked and added an . This is something that you known of course, but many readers may not be so familiar with the warships of the period.
Majestic titans
They had lithium deuteride fuel but did not realise that lithium-7 will fuse as well as lithium-6, so the bomb went off with a much, much bigger bang than expected. Linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of my issues have been dealt with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
It's probably not the shortest article brought to FAC (I think there are a few 8kB FAs), but I think this is the little biography that could. FYI: I started the article on 18 September, it was promoted a GA about a half hour ago (21 September), and I have a DYK hook pending review. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeComments: nominating at FAC within half an hour of GA promotion is not generally a good idea. It assumes that there is no distinction between GA and FA, which is not the case; one would expect at least a few days' polishing and preparation with the FA criteria in mind. I've taken a brief look at this very short article, and without any close inspection have spotted a number of errors and infelicities:
Reply: I don't remember anywhere in WP:WIAFA that there was a requirement for the passage of time between GA and FA or any other statuses. But maybe adding seemingly unwritten rules seems to be the norm around FAC.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I agree with ColonelHenry that there is no rule saying that there must be a waiting period between getting GA status, and applying for FA status. It's different groups of reviewers for GA and FA. Earlier this year, I helped write an article that went straight to FA status without ever having had a GA-review. DavidinNJ (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that there is any rule or requirement about the timing of a FAC nom, merely that articles shouldn't be hurried into FAC without some due diligence, whether they have been through GA or not (and GA is a very uncertain preparation for FAC). Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"As an undergraduate student, Woodridge was a member of the university's secretive, all-male Eucleian Society and be elected to Phi Beta Kappa." Faulty grammar.
Woodbridge is variously described as "Woodbridge" and "Rev. Woodbridge" without any logical distinction. The former should be used consistently, after his full formal title is given in the lead.
Done (21SEP13) - Reverted usage to the former. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise there is a disparity in form between "The Rev. Samuel Merrill Woodbridge" in the lead image caption and "Rev. John Ludlow" in the text.
Done (21SEP13) - with insertion of "the" --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why repeat Woodbridge's postnominals and birth–death years in the image caption?
Reply: -- Why not? Can you point to anything about the caption anything that violates MOS or WP:CAPTION? If not, this is a non-issue. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is unnecessarily repetitive to have the same details in adjoining spaces. MOS doesn't cover everything, and shouldn't be cited as the ultimate reason for doing or not doing things. Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, although I have numerous reservations about the use of infoboxes in WP articles, it is customary for general biographical articles to have them, at any rate when they reach FAC. Any reason why you've decided not to have one?
Reply: Because I chose not to. Per WP:IBX: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. What really would be sensible about having an infobox on a short article? --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to agree with you, but others may not. Long experience of infobox arguments leads me to think that your decision should be backed by more than personal preference. I think your citing the length of the article is a sensible justification, certainly the one that I would use if a box was added later. Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tense error: "During his tenure at the seminary, Woodbridge would also provide instruction in the areas of..." → "...Woodbridge provided instruction..."
Done (21SEP13) - changed to "also provided instruction" --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Rev. Woodbridge received honorary degrees from New York University (A.M., 1841)" Really? He was 22 at the time - a bit young for receiving honorary degrees; can you check this?
Reply: I actually don't need to check this. An "A.M." was typically given by early 19th century American universities seemingly as an honour for being alive a few years after graduation, and typically bestowed upon clergymen after a few successful years at their first pastorate, for educators, or for academic distinction in the years after their baccalaureate work. It did not become a taught degree in the States until later in the 19th century. For instance, Princeton stopped giving honorary A.M.s about the time it changed its name in 1896, Harvard and Yale stopped the practice a decade or two earlier as they developed real graduate programs. In its honourary 18th and 19th century form, it is similar to the Oxbridge Master of Arts. Remember, Thoreau refused to pay Harvard for his A.M. diploma. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that, in modern terms, "honorary degree" means a degree honoris causa awarded for distinction in some field outside the university's remit. This probably covers Woodbridge's later degrees, but hardly the 1841 A.M. which looks like an upgrading of his A.B. in the manner whereby, today, Oxford and Cambridge BAs become MAs after three years - these are not "honorary degrees". If the A.M. was essentially automatic, it's perhaps best to omit it altogether from a sentence dealing with "real" honorary degrees. Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But they weren't "automatic" like the upgraded varieties. Rutgers and NYU's catalogues don't show that many A.M. degrees being handed out, and in Rutgers' case they list it as an "honorary" degree. so I lean toward keeping the description as "honorary". NYU's is a little more vague, but given that NYU didn't hand out degrees across the board to his fellow 1838 classmates, it would be in keeping with the notion of an honorary degree. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done (24SEP13) I checked with NYU's archivist yesterday, and she emailed me that the NYU 1841 A.M. degree was a "promoted" degree, which both could and could not be considered honorary and that roughly half of the class would get the promotion based on their going into the clergy or being admitted before the bar as an attorney. It seems those who entered a life "in commerce" seemed to get passed over. I will defer to referring to the NYU A.M. as being "promoted." The Rutgers 1841 A.M. will still remain as "honorary" because the Rutgers catalogue describes it as such (at p. 339).--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"His first marriage was to Caroline Bergen (d. 1861) in February 1845 and the couple had one daughter, Caroline Woodbridge (b. 1845)". The "and" conjunction is inappropriate. Also, the sentence should be fully prosified: "who died in 1861", "born in 1845".
These comments, remember, are based on a quick glance-through rather than a careful review of the text. The article obviously needs more attention. There's no reason why short articles shouldn't become FAs, but there are fewer hiding places for errors, so special care needs to be taken. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, but FAC is effective at eliminating those errors and hiding places. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
I have had time for a more detailed reading, and have the following additional comments:
Lead: "Woodbridge later led the seminary as "Dean of the Seminary" and "President of the Faculty" from 1883 to 1901." It's not entirely clear whether by "the seminary" you mean the New Brunswick seminary; the link actually confuses the issue here. You could get rid of the confusion, and the repetition, by rewording, e.g. "Woodbridge later led the New Brunswick seminary as Dean and President of the Faculty".
Biography: "According to a genealogical chart in Munsey's Magazine..." - you could give a litle more information, e.g. "According to a genealogical chart published in in Munsey's Magazine in 1907..."
Biography: "Classis" is a fairly obscure word for the general reader; why not say "governing body"?
Done (23SEP2013) - I linked to Classis#Presbytery and provided a clause for "a governing body overseeing churches within the region"--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Biography: "He would retire from teaching" → "He retired from teaching" - and a comma should follow "professor"
Done (23SEP2013) - retired and comma. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Biography: "According to church historian Charles Edward Corwin, Rev. Woodbridge was described as having a "strong personality" that "made dry subjects to glow with life," adding that Woodbridge "was very firm in the faith but his loving heart made him kindly even toward those whose opinion he considered dangerous." Several issues with this sentence. The wording "According to church historian Charles Edward Corwin, Rev. Woodbridge was described as..." is very heavy-footed. Why not simplify to something like: "Church historian Charles Edward Corwin recorded that Woodbridge had..." etc? That way, the "adding" participle works, which it does not at present. Whether or not you adopt my wording you need to lose the "Rev". Also, I don't think that a commonplace phrase like "strong personality" warrants quotes.
Done (23SEP2013) per your suggestion. "strong personality" was put in quotes because it was part of the source quote in Corwin's Manual . I will remove them.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Books: Why not give publication details (location, publisher)?
Reply (23SEP2013). I haven't found that information. I suspect it should be "New York: Board of Publications Reformed Protestant (Dutch) Church" like several others at the time. The books aren't online for me to check, and my emails to research librarians at the Seminary and at Rutgers haven't received a reply. Standby.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done (26SEP2013) - Added notes regarding what little there is on the books.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sermons and discourses: the presentation is not fully consistent and looks incomplete. Details of publication are missing in a couple of cases, more precise dates are given in two other instances. Unless those two dates are of specific importance I would drop them. Where publication details cannot be determined I would add a note to that effect, to avoid the impression that the table is unfinished.
DoneStandby - awaiting email replies from research librarians at Rutgers and NBTS before I proceed on this.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: - I believe I've addressed the bibliographic issues that you raised, please do let me know if this suffices.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously have the issues well in hand. I have struck the oppose and look forward to supporting when your final researches are complete. Maybe ping me a reminder when this is done. Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DonePartly done (26SEP13) as far as books, awaiting a little more information on the smaller articles/sermons.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up completed the issues regarding "sermons and discourses" section.
Support: All issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help in whipping this article into shape. I appreciate it. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have a few minor suggestions, but I believe that this article definitely meets the feature article criteria.
1a. Well-written - The writing is as good as an article in a major newspaper or magazine.
1b. Comprehensive - Though the article is relatively short, it thoroughly covers all aspects of Woodbridge's life and works.
1c. Well-researched - The article uses high-quality encyclopedic and archival references.
1d. Neutral - Article has no bias.
1e. Stable - Article history shows no evidence of edit warring.
2a. Lead - Lead is concise and summarizes Woodbridge's life. I suggest removing the words 'American Reformed Christian.' The sentence does not describe what kind of author he or where he was a college professor, so it shouldn't go into detail about his denomination.
2b. Article structure - The structure of the article is good. I suggest that the biography section be broken in two sections (e.g., early life, career).
2c Citations - reference style is excellent and highly consistent throughout the article.
4. Length - Size is appropriate for the type of article. There is no one proper length for article; it depends on the among of information available for the given topic.
@DavidinNJ:, Thank you for your support and your suggestions. I'll look into that first sentence shortly and weigh some alternatives. As for the alt-text, I'll add that forthwith. As for splitting the biography section...I considered splitting the biography section into smaller sections, but it doesn't seem to work well. If I divide off his career work, which begins as a clergyman in 1841, I split the second paragraph--which seems to be a rather awkward break and would leave the material for the "early life" section too short as a separate section. If I were to split it later, like after the second paragraph, it would be in 1857 (when he was 38), which means half of his life including his 16-year ministerial career, would be "early life." I would venture to say the 6 paragraphs of biographical content work better as one section.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done (21SEP13) - added alt text to the three images.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your changes. I see your point about the biography section, and have struck my previous comment about splitting the section. DavidinNJ (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done (22SEP13) - Addressed the comment about the first sentence, kept "American" removed "Reformed Christian" since the rest of the lede sufficiently establishes that. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment – Don't have time for a full review right now, but I noticed a pp. in note 1 that should be p. instead since the citation is to a single page. As Brian says, an article this short really needs to be spotless to merit FA standard, so this should definitely be fixed.Giants2008 (Talk) 01:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done (21SEP2013) - I think you meant footnote "a", which the one I noticed as "pp.40" and fixed to "p.40". --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears to be using international-style date formatting for the birth and death dates. Since this is an American subject, this should likely be changed to U.S.-style formatting (April 5, 1819), unless there's some other circumstances I'm missing.
Reply: I'm not a WP:STRONGNAT supporter. I find its forceful application to be a jingoistic and nonsensically exclusionary policy. (1) I find the policy based on a fallacy, because there is no longer, in this globalised world, one consistent "American style", (2) I disagree that just because someone happens to be an American is not sufficient in my book for claiming a 'strong tie' to any particular style, and (3), the guideline says "should" not must. The conditional modal verb is exactly that, conditional. (see IEEE style guide 13.1 for the optional character of "should"). Guideline = recommendation = should = options. Lastly, style guides in the humanities, including the editors of Chicago-Turabian, are moving consistently toward international style.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note 7: Looks like a word is missing after "the June 1871".Giants2008 (Talk) 01:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done (27SEP13) - You mean note "g", to which I added "issue" after June 1871. --ColonelHenry (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Jim Not my area of expertise (if any), but looks sound. Just a couple of niggles before I support. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Biography—I thought that "Biography" was frowned upon as a heading in biographies, with "Life" being preferred. If I'm wrong, please ignore
Reply: I don't see anything of the sort at WP:BIO or within the MOS, and I can point to several GAs and FAs that use the section title "Biography". If you can point me to anything regarding that, I'll be glad to address it then.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7 years—numbers less than ten should be spelt out
Done (23SEP13) two "7" and one "16", and one "11th"...most style guides say numbers under 20 should be spelled out, so I went by 20/twenty.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
seminary as "Dean of the Seminary" and "President of the Faculty" —Are the quote marks necessary? And can the repetition be avoided by something like seminary as its Dean and as President of the Faculty
Done (23SEP13) - addressed in revision regarding Brian's comments on the lede above. removed also in the Biography section --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rev. — just checking that it's standard to always abbreviate
Reply: I've been removing "Rev." per Brian's comments above.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Classis—I don't know this word, can it be linked or explained?
Done (23SEP13) Addressed in revisions regarding Brian's comments above. Linked to Classis#Presbytery and explained in text.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rutgers College—link
Reply: I linked to it in the lede, and decided not to here because of WP:OVERLINK.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He would retire from teaching in 1901—He retired..."
The "Biography" was just a vague notion since I don't write many of this sort of article. Other concerns have been addressed, and I note that you are moving on with Brian's comments (some of which appear to be the same as mine) so I'll change to support above. Good work. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your support and for your help here in improving the article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was the reviewer of this article at GAN at which time several improvements were made. A few further points:-
"Both schools were then affiliated with the Protestant Dutch Reformed faith." - It is not clear to me whether this refers to synchronous affiliation or subsequent affiliation.
Reply: During the course of his life, both schools were affiliated with the Reformed faith. While I do see the basis for your comment, I think it's adequately conveyed unless you have an alternatively better wording--I'd prefer not using the trite and repetitive "at that time". There is an explanatory note attached therewith stating that Rutgers became nonsectarian in 1945. I would assess that the details of the school's religious affiliations (see WP:SUMMARY) are not appropriate at this biographical article and assert that it is a discussion that's best explored at length in the history sections of the articles for Rutgers University (affiliated with the RCA 1766-1945) and New Brunswick Theological Seminary (affiliated with RCA 1784-present)--both of which I have worked on (moreso for NBTS).--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would look better if the image of the church was vertical. It looks a couple of degrees off to me.
Reply: Taking a photo on a narrow street of a tall building is always problematic. Secondly, FA criteria just ask that the photo is relevant, free content, and properly captioned. There is no discussion about aesthetics.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up: After taking a longer look at the picture, yes, the vertical orientation of the church is negligibly off by a few degrees, however, this slight angle is augmented by the incline in the street...the curb at the right edge of the photo is about 12-16" inches above curb at the left edge. Further, take into account the distortion of taking a photo of a tall building across a relatively narrow street, and there's the effect you mention. It would take me 90 minutes to drive each way to New Brunswick to take a replacement photo, and given gas prices, and from a cost-benefit analysis there isn't a pressing need and it's frankly a waste of time unless I had other things to do down there. However the image isn't up for featured content as a featured picture, the article is, and as far as the FA criteria go, the aesthetic shortcomings of the photo aren't quite important. I don't think there is an issue.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The material is a bit sparse. To what extent have you searched for other possible sources? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Define objectively "a bit sparse" in terms of the FA criteria and specific shortcomings so that I can determine if this is an actionable issue. I assert that I am sufficiently familiar with the sources available for Rutgers and NBTS history, church history, and those for persons connected with them, so as to be able to speak and assert that there are likely few if any other sources beyond those cited that would substantively or qualitatively expand this article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first two points are not deal-breakers. With regard to the image, software is available that can rotate images but in this instance the non-allignment is quite trivial. Your final reply makes it seem likely that the article is as comprehensive as reasonably possible. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that postnominals and dates of life are superfluous in lead caption - however, consider including a date for the image
Done (27SEP13) removed, added "c. late 1860s." (explained below)--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Samuel_Merrill_Woodbridge_1819-1905.jpg: licensing tag is incorrect. You didn't take the original image, so scanning it in does not create a new copyright. Is the creator of the original image known?
Reply: I will repair the tag, I do not know who took the original image, most likely a local New Brunswick, NJ photog--but not Robert Boggs who signed all his work on the negative. Because of the original's fading pattern I think it's an AgCl or AgF print, and the style of its cartes des visite, it would be from the late 1860s. Therefore, should I change it to a general PD or "too old to be copyrighted" tag? I admit, my knowledge in selecting Wikipedia's licensing tags is sorely inadequate--and that day, I think I uploaded several images and this was likely a mistake made mindlessly while going through the uploading process.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done (28SEP13) - fixed it with a PD-old template.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:New_Brunswick_Theological_Seminary_Faculty_c1904.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I don't know of any publishing of the photo. I know it's in the NBTS and Rutgers library special collections, I know there's a copy in the RCA archives at Hope College in Michigan. I have a copy in my collection of NJ and Rutgers-related stuff because it was released both as a regular print and on card-backing, c. 1904. I have both, but the print is better quality.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done (28SEP13) - I believe I've explained that adequately on the image summary.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: - I'll address the above comments above later today after work. In the meantime or thereabouts, since I know and respect your reputation for keen detail in addressing FAC reviews, would you be able to do a full review in case there are things other reviewers and I have missed? --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done (29SEP13) - there were three in the article, one in the lede, two in the body. I removed the link at "Reformed Church's Classis of New York" and kept the one at "Protestant Dutch Reformed faith" since I think "Dutch Reformed" would benefit more from the link and the other is contextually sufficient. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any critical commentary or review of either his theology or his sermons? Of his publications?
Reply (29SEP13) - None that I know of--and this is an area I know a lot about. His books were more like textbooks or primers. Mostly they were prepared to aid his instruction to his students--since before the 1850s/1860s most Reformed theology instruction was donimated by adherence to the writings of Johannes van Marck (Marckii Medulla Theologiae) which was in Latin. Woodbridge basically provided an English-language textbook. As for his sermons, in the 19th century there really wasn't much in the way of criticism of sermons, they were just published, and often if they were referenced by other writers/clergy it was typically to reinforce a point in their own sermons and writings. When you get to a critical discussion of homiletics it's more an analysis of rhetoric or pedagogy and the means of effectively communicating the message than a critique of their premises and content. However, homiletics doesn't emerge as a scholarly discipline in the Protestant tradition until about 40 years after Woodbridge's death (with the work of Andrew Watterson Blackwood Sr. at Princeton Theological Seminary), when his work was largely out of circulation or ignored.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What was the difference at the time between dean and faculty president?
Reply: (29SEP13) None really besides title--I established they were both successors to the post of seminary president which places it in context. Both posts were given to the oldest, longest-serving professor at the Seminary--which I discussed regarding the "Dean" title. Am I mistaken in thinking "president of the faculty" is rather self-explanatory--especially given the context before and after its mention.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know dates of birth/death for the second wife?
Done (29SEP13) - 1823–1920 per gravestone. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FN4 includes a doubled period
Done (29SEP13) - period removed. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that "passim" is discouraged in citations in much the same way that ibid is
Reply: (29SEP13) "discouraged", not prohibited. However, "passim" isn't mentioned at WP:IBID. The rationale by which "ibid", and "op. cit.", "loc. cit." is discouraged stems from their usage to refer to other specific page mentions in previous notes that can be removed, separating the full source from the subsequent note which just says "McCormick, ibid.", or "McCormick, loc. cit."--"passim" does not make a specific reference that would be lost if it were removed. In this article, I don't just say "McCormick, passim." as a short reference and leave it) The guideline mentions ibid. for this reason, and says "other similar abbreviations". I would venture to say "passim" is not similar in this regard--especially since both cites to this source are full citations (i.e. I refuse to use short citations for this reason among others). Unfortunately with a book where the two statements (the two ubiquitous factoids that Rutgers became a state university and that it was previously affiliated with the reformed faith) are referenced throughout the source, "passim." is appropriate. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, can you describe briefly what steps you've taken to search for additional references? This source, for example, may have been missed. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: (29SEP13) - J.H. Raven's Biographical Record (your link), of which I am familiar, offers the same information that I've cited from other sources, including the NYU and Rutgers catalogues, the seminary's 40th anniversary "Festschrift" (I cite Raven's 1916 Rutgers catalogue, but his 1911 seminary Biographical Record references the 1909 Rutgers catalogue which he compiled, and earlier editions before his tenure). I did not cite the work you linked above because it is largely derivative of, and duplicates, the works I've already cited in the article. As I stated above, any additional works that are out there (and I'm likely aware of all of them) don't add anything more substantively or qualitatively to the content of the article beyond what I've already presented and cited.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Sasata and I are nominating this for featured article because we feel we've tinkered with it to the point we're happy with it as far as we can tell and figure that any further tinkering can be done with a minimum of fuss and comfortably within the FAC time frame. I need to re-borrow one book when it is available (Rainforest Fungi of Tasmania) to get a page number and will be able to do so in the next 3-4 weeks. So have at it for everything else...cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 06:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Coloured_Figures_of_English_Fungi_or_Mushrooms_-_t._34.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thought to be ectomycorrhizal, C. piperatus has not been confirmed as ectomycorrhizal in —Easily avoided repetition
Tweaked wording. Sasata (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has been used as a condiment in many countries —How is it used? Fresh, dried, powdered?
sources don't really clarify, just say "added in small amounts" ...so I presume it is either dried or just occasionally 1-2 mushrooms are cooked up along with a bunch of boletes. I am pretty sure it isn't powdered though.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 07:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I scraped my sources and added this, but agree in general that there isn't a whole lot written about this. Sasata (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yannai cited text is missing publisher, Fuhrer is missing a page number
No further queries, I'm surprised you found as much as you did about its use as a condiment, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Delegates: I was the GA reviewer). Very strong- even the chemistry section is very readable! Great pictures and sources, well written, even quite an interesting species. If I'm being picky, the last line of the edibility distribution section is rather oddly constructed and the edibility section is a little choppy. J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yeah that sentence is a tricky one. The suspicion is that the clade is parasitic, so reworded.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Quadell
The article is well written. It's a bit of a snoozer for those of us not particularly interested in mushrooms, but that's not the article's fault; in fact, the prose (particularly in "Description") does an admirable job of making dry information as engaging as possible. I have a few relatively minor suggestions below. I have also made a few wording and grammar changes for smoothness. If you disagree with any of them, feel free to revert and discuss.
Semicolons have their place, but it can be distracting for the reader when two sentences in a row use them. The top of the "Description" section and the bottom of the "Distribution and habitat" section both do this.
Removed a couple. Sasata (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hyaline should be linked and parenthetically described ("translucent") the first time it is used, not the second.
This sentence could use a reword: "The basidia (spore-bearing cells) are narrowly club-shaped with many internal oil droplets, hyaline, four-spored, and measure 20–28 by 6–8 µm." At first it looks as if the sentence is saying that the basidia have internal oil droplets and hyaline, or that the oil droplets are hyaline. It's confusing to use "narrowly club-shaped with many internal oil droplets" as the first adjective-phrase in a list of adjectives. And the last list item isn't an adjective at all, but a verb, and so doesn't belong it the same listing. So I would reword like "The basidia (spore-bearing cells) measure 20–28 by 6–8 µm and are hyaline, four-spored, and narrowly club-shaped, with many internal oil droplets." (Although it might be smoother broken up into two sentences.)
Changed as suggested. Sasata (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The multiple "and"s are poetic in "in or near coniferous and beech and oak woodland", but perhaps too casual.
Reworded this bit. Sasata (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it correct to capitalize "West Coast" but not "eastern states"?
Our article capitalizes West Coast. As far as I know, there isn't a capitalized noun for the group of states in the eastern US. At any rate I've changed it to the equivalent Pacific Coast (in which the capitalization is more obvious). Sasata (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph of the "Distribution and habitat" section uses "has been recorded" in two sentences in a row.
Would it be accurate to explain ectomycorrhizal for the reader this way? "...thought to be ectomycorrhizal (symbiotic with plants, like most Boletaceae)..." If so, it would be helpful.
Sure, done. Sasata (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This clause contains an incorrect use of a comma: "The mushroom needs to be well-cooked before consumption, otherwise there is a risk of gastric symptoms". Perhaps this? "The mushroom should be well-cooked before consumption to minimize [or alleviate] the risk of gastric symptoms"
Changed as suggested. Sasata (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be in the category of "edible fungi", given that the text describes controversy about the designation?
If left it in, as it has some history of being used as an edible mushroom. I'm not too concerned about the categorization of "edge" cases like this; I figure if Amanita muscaria is in this category, this mushroom can be as well! Thanks for your helpful comments Quadell. Sasata (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All my concerns have been addressed. This article clearly meets all our FA criteria. – Quadell(talk) 18:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
FN38: Boletes of California is an online edition of California Mushrooms, but has different publisher and author information than the print version - is there a way to reflect this in the footnote? I see dates are reflected already. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this does the trick. Thanks for checking! Sasata (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Please note that I attempted to get this cleaned up at WP:PR and the request was ignored for a full cycle.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be worth noting that Tony is currently blocked indefinitely. GamerPro64 13:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest removal by delegate The nominator is unable to either respond to comments or withdraw the article, seems best that it is removed until he is unblockedJimfbleak - talk to me? 14:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to say that. Since Tony has been unblocked, I don't see why this can't stay up now. Presumably, he will now be around to reply to reviewers' commentary. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Bold links like the one at the start are discouraged by the MoS. I'd recommend moving the team link to the second sentence.
Preseason: "ESPN's Eamonn Brennan noted that Michigan is a perimeter oriented team with possibly the best one-two guard combination in the country." "is" → "was" for past tense.
WE ON: Not sure why there are three periods before "Michigan State went on to win the game by 23 points."Giants2008 (Talk) 01:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One more item I just noticed, which should definitely be addressed before this is promoted: The beginning of the body has in quotes, "The Wolverines appeared in the national championship game, the first time the team had done so since 1989, appearances in 1992 and 1993 were vacated due to a scandal". I believe this is covered later, and if it isn't this is not the right place for the text to appear. I also think that it would be good if some of the long paragraphs in the season summary were broken up further, but that is a luxury compared to the first point.Giants2008 (Talk) 01:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to breaking up the long paragraphs, I am open to suggestions. Right now each paragraph is about a month long. There are no basketball season FAs (pro or college) so I guess we are setting a standard by acting or not acting on this issue. I could break each month out as a subsection with separate paragraphs if you think that works.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of subsections. Each of the four longest paragraphs in the regular season summary could stand to be split, and subsections could help accomplish that. I also think that the postseason summary could use some splitting; one possible way of doing this is to put everything before the South Dakota State game in a paragraph, and then have two paragraphs for the rest of the content. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried breaking things up. Let me know if I overdid it or if it resulted in further concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The paragraph splits look good to me, and since that was my last remaining issue I feel comfortable supporting now. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ToaNidhiki05 16:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why? It is not part of a subordinated clause or parenthetical and there is no reason to set off a prepositional phrase.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The bit about the team recording the most wins in 20 years is worded a bit awkwardly IMO; it isn't made clear whether or not this is the most wins for Michigan or the entire NCAA over the period. Change it to something along the lines of 'The team achieved a 31–8 record, the most wins the program has recorded in 20 seasons'.
'With its new lineup, the team matched the greatest starts in school history. Reaching 11–0 matched the best start since the last Michigan national champions, the 1988–89 team. At 16–0, Michigan matched their best start since the last repeat Big Ten Regular season championship, the 1985–86 team, tying a school record. Reaching 19–1 set a record for the best start in school history.' This runs a bit long and seems a bit redundant to me. I would suggest just noting the last bit - that the team's 19-1 start set a record for the best start in school history.
Just a note, the new Big Ten abbreviation looks incredibly silly, but good job in using it instead of the older 'B10'. :P
*'The team entered February with a 20–1 record (7–1 B1G), but with an injury to eventual B1G All-Defensive selectee Jordan Morgan and a stretch of games against its strongest conference opponents, Michigan lost three out of four games and closed the season with a 5–5 run to finish tied for fourth in the conference. They then won one game in the Big Ten Tournament before being eliminated.' Once again, a bit of a run-on. I would suggest putting a period after noting they lost three of their last four games, and then combining the other two sentences.
I would suggest merging the last two sentences of the third paragraph.
*Remove the quotation marks around 'official' per WP:SCAREQUOTES. I would suggest rewording this sentence entirely to something along the lines of "The Wolverines appeared in the national championship game, the first time the team had done so since 1989; appearances in 1992 and 1993 were vacated due to a scandal".
*'The team lost both of its 2011–12 Michigan Wolverines captains to graduation after they completed their eligibility the prior season.' No need to note the previous season specifically; just say 'the team had lost both of its captains from the previous season...'
'He left the program as the fifth all-time three-point shooter[3] with a percentage of 40.5.' Note specifically that he is the fifth-best three-point shooter in Michigan's history.
'Burke was a preseason All-American (Associated Press 1st team,[47] CBS Sports 2nd team,[48] ESPN 2nd team,[49] Sporting News 3rd team[50]). Burke was also a preseason Naismith Award top 50 selection.[51]' Merge these two sentences.
*'According to David Brandon, assistant coach LaVall Jordan and director of basketball operations Travis Conlan, guided to the team to develop the slogan' Remove the comma after Conlan.
'Prior to the season, the five freshman were dubbed the "Fresh Five", a moniker harkening remembrance of the Fab Five, but that was downplayed most of the season.' Change 'harkening' to 'hearkening' and note who the Fab Five were. As a side note, why was the phrase downplayed, and who was it downplayed by?
You may want to note that Stauskas is Canadian in this section, as some readers might not remember that bit. Also, just change '(Michigan Wolverines men's basketball student section at Crisler Arena)' to '(Michigan's student section at Crisler Arena)'.
One thing I notice in this is that this section is big, and has a lot of text. It would be very difficult to find anything in particular here, especially individual game result. I would suggest this be divided somehow - like dividing it into regular season and postseason sections, or dividing it by month up until the tournament. With that out of the way, I'll get on to the section itself.
When you noted this new paragraphs began at the beginning of December, January and February. I just split out the beginning of March too.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I just noticed that after I posted. Was just a suggestion. :) ToaNidhiki05 23:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*'In its November 12 contest against the IUPUI Jaguars, the team's 91–54 victory gave it its first consecutive 90-point performances since the 2000–01 team, did so with 90 against Oakland and 92 against Western Michigan as part of a November 2000 3-game 90-point streak.' Seems a bit weirdly worded. I'd change this to 'The team's first game of the tournament, a November 12 contest against the IUPUI Jaguars, resulted in a 91–54 victory for Michigan. The win also gave Michigan its first consecutive 90-point performances since the 2000–01 team recorded three consecutive 90-point games.'
'This is the first time the team has posted three consecutive 30-point wins since the eventual 1989 national champion 1988–89 team won 5 consecutive 30-point games in December 1988.[74]' Once again, wierd wording. Change to something like 'The win also marked the first time Michigan has posted three consecutive 30-point wins since the 1988-89 Wolverines team (the 1989 national champions) did so.'
'On November 21, the team unveiled warm up shirts bearing the phrase "WE ON", which relates to a locker room light switch each player must turn on before entering the court, according to ESPN reporter and former AnnArbor.com reporter Michael Rothstein.[75] Michigan assistant coach Bacari Alexander tweeted that WE ON is an acronym for "When Everyone Operates NSynch" that summarizes team-focussed mindset.[76]' Remove this section, as the info is already covered in an earlier section.
'On November 27, Michigan raised its Big Ten championship banner from the season before.[83] Then, the team defeated its first ranked opponent of the season, NC State (#18 AP/18 Coaches),[84] in the ACC–Big Ten Challenge behind Burke's first career double-double which included a career-high 11 assists, no turnovers and 18 points, and a career-high 20 points from Stauskas in a 79–72 victory.[85]' Put a '#' in front of the coaches poll number. This is also a bit of a run-on, so I would recommend splitting it into two sentences.
'On December 4, Michigan defeated Western Michigan 73–41, giving the team its first 8–0 start since the 1996–97 team[90] Again the team never trailed in the game.[91]'. Put a comma before citation 90. Remove 'Again'.
'The game also marked the team's second game without Jon Horford who dislocated his knee during the West Virginia game.[104]' Put a comma after 'Horford'.
'On January 6, Burke and Robinson both posted their third and first career double-doubles, respectively in a 95–67 against Iowa. It marked the first time that the team scored 90 points in back to back games since the 1999–2000 team and tied for the most points in a conference game since the 1997–98 team.[111][112]' Two things here; first, put a comma after 'respectively'. Second, the second paragraph claims to be the first time that the team had scored 90-points in consecutive games since the 1999-2000 team. Which is true?
'On January 17, Michigan defeated Minnesota (#9 AP/#12 Coaches)[120] at Williams Arena, marking the first time Michigan defeated a top-10 team on the road since a December 6, 1996 victory by the 1996–97 team over Duke.[121]' Add a comma after '1996'.
'Since he scored 21 points on 7-for-8 shooting (4-for-5 three-point shot) with 5 rebounds, 3 assists, 3 steals and 2 blocks,...' Change to 'After his performance, in which he scored 21 points while making 7 of 8 shots and 4 of 5 three-point shots, in addition to recording 5 rebounds, 3 assists, 3 steals and 2 blocks,...'
I would suggest using a different term than 'relegated' in the bit about Kentucky, due to the term's general usage in reference to the promotion and relegation system.
'As a number four seed, Michigan opened the tournament by defeating South Dakota State 71–56,[166] giving the team its most wins in 20 years and matching Beilein's career high.[167]' How many wins was this?
Eh, not sure about that. You can leave it blank for now. ToaNidhiki05 16:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is the 'team' section for?
There are many instances when a rebound is not clearly attributable to a player and gets credited to the team.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining, that makes sense. ToaNidhiki05 16:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Change the first sentence to 'Statistics come from the team's website'.
'On that same date, ESPN's Jason King predicted that if all four players left the 2013–14 team would begin the season unranked, based on the expectation that Michigan could lose four players to the NBA draft.' The last bit is unneeded since it just repeats everything before the comma.
'Also on April 9, USA Today projected that if one of the four possible 2013 NBA draft entrants returned, Michigan could be ranked 24th, but that if they all returned, Michigan would be preseason #1.' Remove the 'also'. Change 'but' to 'and'; replace the '#1' with 'number one'.
Change 'Burke became the first top 10 Wolverine selection since Jamal Crawford in the 2000 NBA Draft. Hardaway joined his father (14th in 1989 NBA Draft) as a first round selection.[247][248] Burke joined Victor Oladipo (2nd) and Cody Zeller (4th) to give the Big Ten its first top ten trio since the 1990 NBA Draft.' to something like 'Burke became the first top 10 Wolverine selection since Jamal Crawford in the 2000 NBA Draft, and he joined Victor Oladipo (2nd) and Cody Zeller (4th) to give the Big Ten its first top ten trio since the 1990 NBA Draft. Hardaway joined his father, who was picked 14th in 1989 NBA Draft, as a first round selection.[247][248]
Good point, didn't think about that. ToaNidhiki05 16:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Postseason roster changes
*'On May 8, 2013, the school's final required disassociation with players implicated in the University of Michigan basketball scandal ended.' Very awkward to read. Change to something like 'The team's required 10-year dissociation with players implicated in the University of Michigan basketball scandal ended on May 8, 2013'.
Great job on the fixes - I'll go ahead and give tentative support, since there hasn't been a full source check yet. ToaNidhiki05 23:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Support: The article looks great, and it was a fun read. However, I find the amount of images in certain sections quite overwhelming. Some are repetitive and others lack action. To be more specific:
2012–13 team recruits: I suggest you only keep one or two of the images.
Schedule: I suggest you keep one image in each of the boxes, except for the Burke & Robinson III picture (that looks great).
Currently the regular season portion of the Schedule section has one image of each of the 6 guys who got big minutes and the playoff section has one of each guy who started in the Tournament. I don't really think there is an equitable way to reduce the number of images.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the sources, I think all of them are appropriately used along with their level of reliability. For instance, source 255 caught my attention, but I think it is acceptable since it is citing an uncontroversial (and related) subject. My only suggestion here, and this is something that might sound bothersome, is to change the number dates into words (instead of 2012-11-21, write 21 November 2012). I have found this to make source management and checking much easier, and also would help readers be less confused (sad it may sound, readers do get confused with the month-date order).
Resolved comments from SkotyWATC 04:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Skotywa review comments
"the team matched the greatest starts in school history" should either be "the greatest start" or "one of the greatest starts" shouldn't it?
The subsequent four sentences discuss the starts of the 1988–89 team, 1985–86 team, and 1992–93 team. This team matched all those starts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. That makes sense. I must not have been patient enough with my reading before I made this comment. --SkotyWATC 16:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Reaching 11–0..." maybe could be worded better as "Starting the season with 11 consecutive wins..." and would reduce the repetitiveness of the schedule milestones discussed in later sentences.
"Tim Hardaway, Jr. was named to the All-Big Ten 1st team by the coaches and to the 2nd team by the media; Robinson was named an honorable mention All-Big Ten by the media and Morgan was an All-Big Ten Defensive team selection." Is the semicolon usage here correct? I would have thought a comma instead of a semicolon, and another comma before "and Morgan" is the right way to do it. I'm not an expert in semicolon punctuation though.
IIRC, you can conjoin independent phrases with either a semicolon or with a comma and a conjunction. The Hardaway, Robinson and Morgan phrases are each independent. Comma added.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First it says this: "At 16–0, Michigan matched their best start since" and then later it says this: "Burke (9th) and Hardaway (24th) gave Michigan its first pair of first round NBA draft choices". I think either "its" or "their" is fine for "Michigan", just be consistent on which one you use throughout the article.
Michigan is singular. The 2012-13 team or just the team is singular. The Wolverines is plural. All changes should be consistent with that. I have been through this issue elsewhere on WP.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first line of text in the "Preseason roster changes" appears to be an uncredited, unsourced quote.
"the team lost three players who decided to transfer: Evan Smotrycz, Carlton Brundidge and Colton Christian decided to leave the program." Here, "decided to leave the program" seems redundant.
"As of December 30, 2011, McGary, Robinson and Stauskas ranked 3, 34, and 79 in the Rivals.com Class of 2012 Top 150, respectively" maybe this is just personal preference, but it seems like the "respectively" would make more sense right after the 79.
"Albrecht led Northfield Mount Hermon School to the 2012 NEPSAC Class AAA Boys' Basketball Tournament, defeating McGary's Brewster in the semifinals." I had to do a double take on "McGary's Brewster" trying to figure out what it was talking about. The table next to the paragraph clears it up, but it might be worth using the full school name, Brewster Acadamy, here since it's the first mention in the prose. Wikilink would probably be appropriate here as well for the same reason.
"After most of the big signings announced their decisions on the April 11 signing day" I'm confused by this statement since so many other dates are mentioned in the paragraphs above. Did they just "commit" on those dates but not "sign" until April 11th?
College basketball recruiting is sort of complicated. Players are often identified before they become a teenager and start getting physical mails, emails, and texts from schools. At certain times of year certain types of communications are allowed. Over time these times of year change. At some point as players reciprocate interest in schools, a school will make an official offer. They probably have to record official offer dates with the NCAA or at least keep official records to document the propriety of their communications (Offer date is often the first important date in a relationship). As players gather official offers, they also scout out schools by taking official and unofficial visits to schools. There are specific types of activities that are allowed for official visits and others that are allowed for unofficial visits. Players are allowed official visits to up to 5 schools. I have never read the rules, but I believe schools are allowed to provide round trip transportation, lodging and special events tickets. Oftentimes player will attend to during a home football game weekend or come during Midnight Madness weekend (Official visit dates are important). Coaching staffs are also allowed to make an official visit to the players home where his mother will often prepare a homecooked meal. For a lot of players, the relationship between the coaching staff and his parent is an important factor (home visit dates are important date and may come before an official visit). At some point after the players have visited campuses and coaches have visited their homes, players will often make an announcement of which school they have chosen. For blue chip players, there is often either a press conference held at his school or a media announcement (e.g., a live announcement on ESPN). These announcement are called verbal commitments. Jabari Parker's article has three pictures of his verbal commitment press conference that I attended. Once you make a commitment, other schools are limited on the types of communications and interactions that they are allowed to have with you. A player has to officially decommit in order to change schools. Then at some later date you officially sign a National Letter of Intent. Once you have signed a letter of intent you are commited to that school for the next year unless the coach leaves the school before the season starts (signing day is the last important date). Signing is only allowed during certain parts of the year. I think there are two signing periods a year for basketball. The first day of each period is called a Signing day because it is when most signings happen. I think you have to sit out a year if you want to change schools after signing a letter of intent. I think most of the dates in this article are commit dates and signing dates. Lots of bios have the three earlier dates too.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. Do you think that there should be any more clarification in the article prose about this, or is it reasonable to expect the reader to have some understanding of this? Obviously I didn't, but I'm not that familiar with college basketball. --SkotyWATC 16:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NLI has an article. It is pretty much like signing a contract and a verbal commitment is an official promise. I don't know how much confusion there is between making a promise and signing a contract, but since one of them is linkable, I hope the confusion is not too great.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Iowa State signee Monte Morris" I would say only leave Monte Morris a red link if you actually think an article will be created for him.
Sorry that I've only had time to review through the "Roster" section so far. If I have time later, I'll continue reviewing. Let me know when you've addressed my concerns and I'll come back and strike them. --SkotyWATC 17:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my comments which have all been addressed. I had one follow up comment/thought on the recruiting paragraph, but I'll leave it up to TonyTheTiger to decide if anything should be added/changed since this article is well outside my areas of familiarity. I hope to have some time this afternoon or early this week to continue reviewing the rest of the article. --SkotyWATC 16:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finally back to finish my review of this article. Sorry for the delay. Too many things going on right now in my life. Anyway...
In the roster table LaVall Jordan is a red wikilink. This is fine if you expect an article about him to be created in the near future. Otherwise, please remove the link (as you've already done with many of the players listed).
Since this is a season that's pretty far in the past at this point, why does the legend need an "injured" symbol?
I wouldn't know how to remove it, but it is conceivable that someone could be injured for the whole season and in that case the symbol might have relevance, I guess.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I guess that means it's part of the template. Not a huge deal. --SkotyWATC 23:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything we can wikilink "on campus media day" to? Same for "Big Ten Conference Basketball Media Day". I don't know what that is (again, I'm not too familiar with the procedures/customs of NCAA basketball).
Media day is a special type of press conference for athletic teams where instead of fielding questions after an athletic event, they have a special day devoted to just answering media questions. It is common for sports teams and sports leagues to have media days. Some important events such as the Super Bowl have media days too. I linked press conference.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Minor... "students in the Izzone at the Breslin Center sported t-shirts with "YOU OFF" printed in Spartan colors" using the word "sported" here feels a little less than encyclopedic. Maybe "wore" instead?
"On represented each player's individual commitment to season-long improvement." I think "On" should be fully capitalized here as "WE" was in the sentence prior.
"hearkening remembrance of the incoming freshman class of 1991 that led Michigan to back-to-back Championship games while starting the majority of games that was known as the Fab Five" I'd suggest rewording this to "hearkening remembrance of the incoming freshman class of 1991, known as the Fab Five, that led Michigan to..."
Minor... "Hardaway began the season" I'd recommend using the players first and last name at the beginning of the major section.
I am taking this as a suggestion and declining it. Between captions, tables and prose, he has already been mentioned at least 4 times in the article (at least three of them linked). The reader should remember who he is. This goes against WP:LASTNAME.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, totally fine. Some of these are probably just my preferences creeping out rather than "must fix" type things. This is definitely one of them. I have no problems with this staying as-is. --SkotyWATC 23:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Minor... "91–54 victory for Michigan" maybe should be "91–54 Michigan victory"
That's fine. I'm for sure no expert. --SkotyWATC 00:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Mitch McGary earned Big Ten Freshman of the Week" this reads funny. I'd either add the word "honors" to the end or change "earned" to "was recognized as"
If you were to read this literally (as someone who's not familiar with the subject matter might), it almost sounds like he earned a "freshman" as a prize. Thanks for making the change. --SkotyWATC 00:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"and earned his third Big Ten Freshman of the Week on December 31" same thing here. Maybe add "award" before "on December 31".
"in a January 6 95–67 victory against Iowa" this just looks weird without any commas. Not sure where the commas should be added, but it seems like none is wrong. Alternatively, it might be better to reword it like this: "in a 95-67 victory against Iowa on January 6th."
"On January 7, Burke earned Big Ten Conference Player of the Week and Robinson earned Conference Freshman of the Week" as above. I recommend changing "earned" to "was recognized as" in both cases.
"for a pair of 12-point performances on 71.4% shooting in which he averaged 8 rebounds" this reads very clunky. Specifically the "on 71.4% shooting" needs to be reworded I think.
Your fix reads much better I think. Thank you. --SkotyWATC 00:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Michigan led by 5 with 52 seconds to go, but missed three free throws in the final 52 seconds, including the front end of two one-and-ones." There are a couple of problems with this sentence. "52 seconds" is unnecessarily repeated, and "the front end of two one-and-ones" feels a little slangy. The latter would also benefit from a wikilink.
I have tried to formalize the tone, but I don't know a link to use. Bonus (basketball) is somewhat relevant, but I am not sure how even that could be used properly in this situation.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's exactly the wikilink to use here. I've added it myself (I went slightly more specific with Bonus_(basketball)#NCAA which actually mentions the term "one-and-one"). Please fix if you don't like how I've done it. --SkotyWATC 00:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"all pegged as likely NBA Draft choices" feels a little slangy again. Maybe replace "pegged as" with "expected to be".
There seems to be an errant column in your players of the week table. If the blank column is on purpose (maybe it's supposed to be a divider?), I'd recommend replacing the apostrophe with " ".
the term "All-conference" appears 3 times in the article, twice with that capitalization and once like this: "all-Conference". I would have thought both the "A" and "C" need to be capitalized, but I'm not sure. Either way, all 3 should be consistent.
Okay, I'm done with my review. That's all I found. I look forward to returning and striking my comments/concerns/suggestions and voicing my support. Again, sorry for the delay with my review. --SkotyWATC 22:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Okay, all is well with my review comments. I am happy to support this article's promotion to WP:FA. --SkotyWATC 00:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - all OK (own work, Flickr CC, PD-ineligible).
added a few personality rights tags, where identifiable persons can be seen in the background. It's just an information tag for re-users (no action required).
"The team lost graduating senior captains Zack Novak and Stu Douglass, who moved on to professional basketball careers in Europe. " when? I'd say something like "Following the 2011-12 season, the team lost...".
"After several other schools announced their commitments, the signing of McGary moved Michigan from outside the top 25 to the number 7 class in the nation, according to ESPN.[17][18]" I thought you said it was #5? YEPacificHurricane 03:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"All three recruits had playoff success: McGary was a member of the National Prep Championship team" at which school? YEPacificHurricane 03:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Hardaway began the season with a double-double by scoring 25 points (including 5-for-5 three-point shooting) and adding 10 rebounds in a 100–62 win over Slippery Rock.[77] His fourth career double-double earned him his second career Big Ten Player of the Week award.[78] " mind combining these two sentences? YEPacificHurricane 03:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Morgan only played two minutes behind replacement starter Horford.[143][145]" signficance? that's like saying I played 3 mins in a game in 3rd grade. YEPacificHurricane 03:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He was injured and not fully recovered. He was still unable to play prolonged minutes. Later in the paragraph the coach talks about how "Morgan's absence affected the team's ability to match up defensively and substitute as it desired". read the rest of the paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What did Morgan injuire? his knee? ankle? shoulder? finger? YEPacificHurricane 03:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Michigan lost to Wisconsin on February 9 in overtime following a half-court buzzer beater by Wisconsin that tied the game in regulation time.[148] " cut the last instance of "time" YEPacificHurricane 03:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Sweet Sixteen" The section includes the elitle eight though, so why is the section called the way it is. YEPacificHurricane 03:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The way the tournament is set up teams play at one venue for the rounds of 64 and 32, another for the sweet sixteen and elite eight, and another for the final four and championships. I will add these venues to the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"On that same date, ESPN's Jason King predicted that if all four players had left for the NBA draft, the 2013–14 team would have begun the season unranked.[250] USA Today projected on April 9 that if one of the four possible 2013 NBA draft entrants returned, Michigan could have been ranked 24th, and that if they all returned, Michigan would have been preseason number one.[251] " relevance to 2012-13? YEPacificHurricane 03:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is content about transition to the following season. No effect on 2012-13 on the court, but issues up to the NBA draft are relevant in some sense.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've finally had a chance to do some kind of review as you asked me, TonyTheTiger. I'm liking what I see so far. Content-wise, the body is a data and prose goldmine. All in all, excellent coverage. However, after doing a ref check, I mined a bit of the following pyrite. Indeed, I decided I would do a reference check. Yes, all 270. For now, I am up to 58, including a few extra in between those two numbers. That covers through the "Preseason" section.
Reference check, 1–58. 28 October 2013
Refs 17 & 18 (recruiting ranks) link only to current rankings, not the ones in Oct & Nov 2012 as suggested in the text and ref title.
I will continue to do what I can, to shoot around for 50 or so per day in the coming days. Elcid.ruderico (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reference check, 29 October 2013. New 20 & 21, and 61–120. Now the total is up to 272, per the two Tony the Tiger added yesterday/earlier today.
Stauskas' hot shooting: [in Slogans, nicknames and emblems -> Canadian flag]: I would mention how you qualified this to beef it up, such as that he was shooting 53.7% on threes through U-M's first 15 games.
Single-digit integers in prose: [Schedule, Regular season -> December] "For averaging 23.0 points, 6.5 assists, 4.5 rebounds and 2.0 steals with only 1 turnover in the games against Binghamton and West Virginia, Burke earned Player of the Week on December 17." "1" should probably be spelled out as "one," since numbers zero through nine are generally done so.
In this sentence, numbers are used to be consistent. I should probably change the turnover to 1.0 for consistency.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1.0 works better. The way I read it was that it was 1 total turnover in two games. --Elcid.ruderico (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to use numerals for all statistics throughout for consistency and spell out ordinals throughout for consistency. Yes many of the statistics are single digits, but a sometimes they are double digits or a mix of single and double digits in the same sentence. If you want me to go back through and change all single digits to prose, I could do that, but I am not sure it is any better in this case.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to haggle. If it is not an issue in FAC, then don't worry about it. --Elcid.ruderico (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That part about Michigan State students wearing the "YOU OFF" t-shirts was a humorous aside. Strong work through this leg of my eval. --Elcid.ruderico (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reference check, 3 November 2013. Ref #s 122–173.
January 3 game vs. Northwestern:I would mention Michigan actually had five players in double-figure points following Burke and Hardaway's totals – since theirs led team – rather than only mentioning Robinson had 10.
Ref 134. I'm failing to see the support for the text "first time Michigan defeated a top-10 team on the road since a December 6, 1996, victory by the 1996–97 team over Duke."
I don't think it is redundant in this context. In fact, I should add these rankings for the March subsection.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Regular season-> February]: "However, playing lots of minutes in Morgan's absence, McGary earned his second Big Ten Freshman of the Week honor on February 11." "lots of" is a phrase that doesn't belong in a FA. I would replace with something to the effect of "dramatically increased play."
Ref 157 does not fully support the claim that "Burke's 18 points, 4 assists and 3 steals were one of Michigan's few bright spots in their February 12 contest," but ref 156 does.
The stats are fully supported in several places in 157 and "Burke scored 18 points for the Wolverines and didn't get much help from his teammate offensively, or defensively." supports the rest.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I was mainly concerned with was mentioning the four assists and three steals. The context part is fine. I found that in ref 156 but not 157. --Elcid.ruderico (talk) 07:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 162: "As a result of his efforts, Burke won his third player of the week award on February 18." May want to specify of the season – ref 162 also states that it was the fourth of his career.
Typo: Regular season-> March: "On March 6, with its Big 10 Conference Championship destiny in its own hands, Michigan defeated Purdue to set up a championship showdown with Indiana on March 9." The date for the championship game with Indiana is wrong. Two sentences later, the date is entered as March 10, and are supported as such by the references.
Other than those slips, the narrative is great. Although I never watched a single moment of Michigan basketball from this season, I get the idea I could easily remember the best plays from a strong season. Down to about 140 more refs (another 41 in the games results table). --Elcid.ruderico (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reference check, 4 November 2013. Ref #s 176–206, plus all games within the Results table.
Ref 180. I'm not even close to finding how this ref supports that Michigan had the youngest team based on weighted minutes.
Just a minor quibble, but I couldn't find the attendance figures in the links for the March 21, 23 or 29 games and they are not on the in-text citations. I don't find it a huge deal, however.
Rankings:Your final rankings appear wrong or was left unfinished. USA Today coaches' #9, AP #2, per this. Yours, currently: USA Today coaches' #2, AP "not released."
The source that you present above (ESPN), which is the citation for the table, seems to only document the rankings through the first week of the postseason (week 19). The USAT/Coaches also produces a rankings after the tournaments are all completed. The table is correct. I just need to add a source for the postseason ranking by the USAT/Coaches.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. My apologies; it appears I didn't look hard enough on that link. --Elcid.ruderico (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistency in number representations, e.g. just in lead: "forty-sixth consecutive year" vs. "20 seasons". Pls check throughout; I have no personal preference as long as MOS is broadly followed and the method is consistent within the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment came just after I went through the article and tried to consistently spell out the ordinals and use numerals for stats (after being prompted in the section above). What do you suggest?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that with the plethora of numbers in such an article you want to distinguish certain uses, but for someone who's not particularly into sports statistics, the method doesn't appear that consistent. Obviously numerals should be employed for scores, averages and, I suppose, wins, but when you see "forty-sixth consecutive year" vs. "20 seasons" it starts to look odd to me. Later on in the lead we say "1st team by the coaches and to the 2nd team by the media" but then "first team consensus". I get the concept of team rankings, and I think you could fairly use "1st" or "first" in this instance, but surely not both? Finally, not being into basketball, I have to wonder about the significance of "Burke (9th) and Hardaway (24th)" -- 9th and 24th what? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I just checked from the schedule part of the article down. I will start from the beginning.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but you haven't addressed my query as to why we should be saying "forty-sixth" for consecutive years and "20" for seasons. Also in the lead, I still don't understand what "(9th)" and "(24th)" mean re. Burke and Hardaway -- are these odd representations of their player numbers or something else? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added "selection" to 9th and 24th. I have rewritten this sentence for greater clarity.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think MOS makes a distinction between ordinals and cardinals in its guidelines for numbers larger than nine, Tony, but as long as there's a method to the madness, consistently applied, I won't spend any more time on it. Tks for clarifying the selection thing for us ignorant non-basketballers... Are you and El Cid about done? I'd like to wrap this up, as I'm sure we all would... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've got just a few more refs (around 30) to verify that I'll most likely get to by the end of today and can then call this burrito a wrap. --Elcid.ruderico (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article was written by Rufous-crowned Sparrow (with some input from me) and nominated for FAC a few months back. The process was going quite well (two supports), until he suddenly disappeared, and he has not edited Wikipedia since May. In the meantime, I have addressed the issues he did not get to fix before the FAC was closed, and I have made a few other alterations. So though Rufous-crowned Sparrow is not here, I would see this as a co-nomination. I tried to contact him through email long ago, but no reply. FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Jim I did the GA review for this, so it's not surprising that I couldn't find much wrong with the improved version. I made a couple of very minor tweaks Nice article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Choiseul_Pigeon_Range_Map.PNG: source for range info?
Well, pretty much all books about the bird mention these islands. You want a source on the image page? FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added a source on the image page. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Flag_of_Choiseul.png: what is the copyright status of the original flag design? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The colour scheme seems simple enough to not be copyrightable, and the bird icon is clearly a stylised derivative of the Keulemans image (I base this on the fact that his image is the first and the definitive image of the bird, which most others are based on, and on several details that are the same). Maybe stylised enough to be distinct? I can ask at Commons. A bit of useless info: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/sb-ch.htmlFunkMonk (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Quadell
This is a very strong candidate. The writing is excellent; I can find no grammar problems or unclear sections. The article seems as complete as the sources will allow, does not go off on tangents, and is will organized. The images are all free and used appropriately, and all necessary information is present. Every statement is sourced, and my spotchecks revealed no problems. I have a very few nitpicks.
Captions that are complete sentences (e.g. "Red denotes...") need to end in periods. Captions which are not (e.g. "Choiseul Pigeon on the flag...") should not end in periods.
Changed, but I'm not sure what you mean by complete sentence? FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Complete sentences have both a subject and a predicate (though both can be complex). When you say "Red denotes [X], while brown denotes [Y]", that's a complete sentence and needs final punctuation. There is no verb in "Choiseul Pigeon on the flag of the Choiseul Province". That's just a noun phrase. You could turn it into a sentence by saying "The Choiseul Pigeon is on the flag of the Choiseul Province", and then it would need a period. Anyway, you fixed it. – Quadell(talk) 15:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One reference ("Fuller 2001, pp. 185–188.") ends in a period. The others do not.
The Tennent journal article is 12 pages long and is referenced 14 times. It can be difficult to locate information used in the article. It would help the reader if the page numbers of each reference were given. (For instance, the first reference [a] only uses page 241, while the last [n] uses page 251.) This is true to a lesser extent regarding Hartert's and Rothschild's journal articles as well. (See the "Sources" section of John Sherman for an impressive example of such.)
Ouch, you want me to do it to the latter ones as well? FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would honestly be helpful in the case of the Tenant and Hartert references. It's not as helpful with a 2-page reference like Rothschild, but you might want to for consistency's sake. I can help with this. – Quadell(talk) 15:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't an ISBN listed for the "Family Columbidae" entry in "Handbook of the Birds of the World", but it looks like an ISBN is available; see Handbook of the Birds of the World#References.
Thanks, I'll fix these issues before long. FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this article is complete, well organized, well written, and fully sourced. The only thing not done is the paging for journal articles. I think that would be a clear improvement, and I'm willing to help with that. Regardless, I don't think it's an obstacle to FA status. – Quadell(talk) 15:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll certainly do Tennant, and then I'll try the other ones. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Too late. :) I changed them in the way I suggested. – Quadell(talk) 16:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks! I have to say that ref-consistency is my least favourite part of the FAC process... FunkMonk (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the source review from the last FAC should suffice? I've only added one new source since then, Fuller's book. FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Apart from a bit of redundant wording (which I tried to clean up), the article is in good shape. I don't have access to the sources so the accuracy of some of the statements is hard to access. But I think that on the whole it's FA worthy. Praemonitus (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. it was successfully source checked during the last FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Cwmhiraeth. In general this seems pretty comprehensive and looks good, but I have a few minor points about the prose:
"... allowing hunters to pick it up off of its roost." - Personally this makes me wince! Surely "off" is sufficient?
"It was only recorded by Albert Stewart Meek, who collected six adults and an egg from the northern part of the island in 1904. Despite many searches, the Choiseul Pigeon has not been definitively reported since Meek collected the six specimens in 1904." - This seems a bit repetitive.
"John Gerrard Keulemans, the bird's original artist, depicted the crest as being flat based on Meek's specimens" - Needs a bit more punctuation for its meaning to be clear.
Changed, better? FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems odd to me to describe the birds iris, then its feet and then its bill. Is the "heel" the joint one can see on the leg in the illustration just below the plumage?
Changed order. The heel is the joint you mention. Some incorrectly call this a "knee". FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The start of the Distribution section has a number of very short sentences.
Made some changes. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" ... did not turn up any signs of the pigeon." - A bit unencyclopedic perhaps?
Personally I would say "As there have been no substantiated reports since 1904 despite multiple searches, the IUCN has declared it extinct."
Alright, will do. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"it is likely that the Choiseul Pigeon was already close to extinction in 1904." - And Meek helped it on its way by killing 6 specimens and taking an egg! (Just a comment, no action required.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heheh, same story is true for many other recently extinct birds. Museum collectors were their worst enemies! FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all should be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now supporting this article on prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because… I believe it meets the criteria. The twenty-cent piece was one of those mistakes that Congress and the Mint just didn't learn from. Not only did they make it too similar in size to the quarter, they used the same design for one side! It did not last long, which may account for a similar mistake being made a hundred years later with the Anthony dollar, or as one source called it "Susie-Bucks". With that dubious note (which may be seen in the references), enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Images are fine, captions are good. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I plan to retake the patterns the next time I get to Colorado Springs. Very grateful for your help, as always :) --Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Crisco 1492, with a couple nitpicks
Far West - perhaps a link would help?
Far West was the contemporary term for the West Coast, "West" would be ambiguous. I think it's self-explanatory to today's reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough
the obverse, or "heads", side of both coins were - Looks like a subject/verb agreement issue
fractional currency - this was recently moved; I'd avoid the redirect if possible
I've copyedited. Be sure to double-check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support. I think I've caught everything and have looked over your c/e, which is fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
What was the size differential between the quarter and the 20-cent piece? Since all of the silver coinage of the period had similar obverses, the cause for confusion isn't real clear unless they were nearly the same size. Otherwise well done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2.3 mm (24.3 vs 22). By way of comparison the diff between the Susan B and the quarter was 2.2 mm (26.5 to 24.3). I will add something when on my laptop later.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that now. Thanks again for the comment. Very helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help out; like I've been saying sometimes a pair of not-so-knowledgeable eyes can be really useful in proofing an article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've proved your point. The similarity in size was so obvious I didn't mention it. Now I have. Fortunately, there are good coin reference books. Thanks again for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments
You mention that small change didn't circulate in the West. I've heard that before, but never heard a good explanation. Do you know why?
The bottom line is that there were no mints striking copper coins available to the West, and so the monetary system evolved without them. Who would bring a load of pennies to the West Coast? I'll look to see if Taxay has anything to say, or Lange.
No big deal if you can't find it. I just thought it would help explain this point that seems odd to modern readers (and I was curious, myself!)
I added a couple of hyphens.
"Despite the fact that the Mint..." might be better as "Although the Mint..."
"The twenty-cent piece was abolished by Congress..." might be better as "Congress abolished the twenty-cent piece..."
Your first external link has an odd format.
That's all. Nice article on an unloved coin. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've done your other comments, still looking on the California stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support. If you find out anything about base metal coins in the West, it would be interesting, but it reads like an FA to me even without it. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I looked. They discuss the situation (Taxay, Carothers, Lange) rather than how it came about, and they really discuss paper money more than the minor coins. Thank you for the review and support--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because...
Albert Ball cleared Good Article Review two years ago. It has since undergone rearrangement of the material within it—mostly shifting sentences about to improve chronological flow of the article. There were also some tweaks made when the latest (Pengelly) bio became available as a source. A stable and complete article, it is worthy of being featured as a best example of Wikipedia.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to co-nom per George's invite. The GA and ACR nominations were largely our efforts, and Soundofmusicals and Carcharoth became more heavily involved during and immediately after the latter review. With four regular editors I expect there may well be places in the article that require some polish but a great deal of research and writing effort has gone into it and I think it has the goods -- between George and myself we should have access to the main sources and be able to respond to potential queries. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:2106-21LastFlightof_CaptainBall.jpg: why is this licensed as a government creation? Was Arnold a government artist? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through this today and I'm impressed. Happy to support after some comments. These will be in fits and spurts due to RL and (*ahem* resolving comments on my FAC a few lines up) so please bare with me. Lede will come last.
Early life
"After a series of moves to houses throughout Lenton..." -- Redundancy of "to houses" IMO.
We seem to have an abundance of "Lenton's" in the first few opening lines: "Albert Ball was born on 14 August 1896[2] at 301 Lenton Boulevard in Lenton, Nottingham. After a series of moves to houses throughout Lenton, his family settled at Sedgley, 43 Lenton Road." →"Albert Ball was born on 14 August 1896[2] at 301 Lenton Boulevard in Lenton, Nottingham. After a series of moves within the parish, his family settled at Sedgley, 43 Lenton Road." I have no idea if this is indeed a parish so I could be wrong here, but I would chose a different word from Lenton.
I don't think being a plumber is "a status". This is a job title if anything else. If we are talking of status's then it would be "employment" to "Lord Mayor"
"His parents were considered loving and indulgent." -- By who?
That would be his biographer Bowyer, although if the latest bio (Pengelly) doesn't disagree, I'd say we could just drop "considered". Perhaps George or Soundofmusicals can check that as Pengelly is the one major source I don't have. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ball's parents allowed him tools, radios, and other electrical equipment for his workshop (the hut mentioned below). He grew up in "genteel surroundings" with his own room and maid service. His father was considered "patient and lenient", as well as protective and supportive of his children. He was a hands-on father, teaching his son to shoot. His mother was so devoted to him that Ball's death reduced her to semi-invalidism.
I did extend the cite to include one more page of such examples.
The actual sentence in Bowyer is: "All three children benefited from the love and indulgence of a close-knit family life."Georgejdorner (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to state that it was his authors observation. -- CassiantoTalk 09:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it truly necessary to duplicate references in the text, just to spare the reader that arduous click that will reveal it anyhow via the cite?Georgejdorner (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Ball had his own small hut" →"Ball had a small hut". "Had" and "his own" are both possessive in this context.
And what's wrong with the possessive in this situation? His indulgent father did give him the hut.Georgejdorner (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with a possessive, but do we need both? -- CassiantoTalk 09:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. Another editor removed the repetition.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Possessed of keen vision, he soon became a crack shot.[5] He was also deeply religious.[6] None of this curbed his daring in such boyhood feats as steeplejacking.[7] -- There seems to be a lot of stubby sentences here which makes for bumpy reading.
Open to suggestions. The statements about his shooting are particularly relevant and read okay to me. I think the religious bit is also important and probably can't easily be combined with other sentences. The last bit about steeplejacking perhaps belongs before the religious thing (we can also expand on it a little if that'd help smooth the bumps). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should all stay, but the pauses should be reduced. The trouble is that each of the short sentences are about completely different subjects so they can't really use commas. Could one of the sentences be expanded a bit? For instance, we could move the "crack shot" claim to where we speak of his upbringing with guns? What religeon did he follow? We could then combine the "steeple jack" claim with a conjunction. Failing that, I do think your correct when you say that the "steeple jack" claim would be better before the "religeon". -- CassiantoTalk 08:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough, his specific creed is not mentioned—only that he was pious.
The writing about firearms IS in a single place already.
I have elaborated on steeplejacking.Georgejdorner (talk) 09:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"helped him gain work at Universal Engineering Works" -- work/works in close proximity.
"March 1915 saw Ball..." →"In March 1915, Ball..."
Will leave this pending more on the related query below. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse the pun, but we seem to be flying through his early years here: "...though he was still interested in other girls such as Thelma Starr." In the space of two sentences, he has met, married got engaged and become interested in initiating an affair with another woman. How and where did he meet his new wife, who was Starr to him where did he meet her, did he have an affair, or was it lust only?
Um, it says he was briefly engaged, not married. I'll need to defer to George or SoM as Pengelly reports this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my error. Cheers Ian -- CassiantoTalk 08:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ball was an adolescent lad of 17 and 18 at this time. His engagement to Dot lasted two months. His next major girlfriend, Thelma Starr, was only 14; in photos, she appears to not yet even gone through puberty. And there were other girls. However, in those Victorian times, it is dubious he had sex with any of them. Nevertheless, his parents were opposed to his engagement(s); they weren't THAT indulgent.Georgejdorner (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. My comment still stands; saying that he was interested in girls is redundant. If we are saying that he had an affair during his engagement, then this maybe worthy of leaving in the text. -- CassiantoTalk 09:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just read your above George, and it seems these were just celibate romances. That's fine then, just double checking. -- CassiantoTalk 12:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As indeed you should. If you weren't doing that, you shouldn't be reviewing this article.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...where his interest in engineering could find an outlet" -- his interest doesn't find it, he does. Could this be reworded.
Forgot this earlier, reworded now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The money conversion ruins the flow of prose IMO. Could this be put in a footnote?
Mmm, it's a pretty concise bit of info, though; I've thought a footnote might be more trouble than it's worth... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These money conversions are standard things in WP articles; they are in numerous articles besides this one. They give the reader the sense of the "real" present day amounts. Also, the sizable sum is another example of parental indulgence.Georgejdorner (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure they are standard, I have used them for all of my FAs. I used them for Dan Leno (in the text) and Marie Lloyd (in a footnote). Now I have used the two, I prefer footnoting them as the flow can become somewhat interrupted by the conversion. I suppose we could get away with this one as it is at the end of a sentence.
"Ball would wake at 3:00 am to ride his motorcycle to Ruffy-Baumann and get in some flying at dawn," -- "get in some flying" just does not sound right. Also, do we really need to know which mode of transport he took? Surely the key point here is the fact he was taking flying lessons. "Ball would wake at 3:00 am for flying practise...
I think it's worth leaving the motorbike mention there as he was in a Cyclist company, and also because the biographies emphasise his fondness for motor transport. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning the motorcycle also shows his interest in mechanics. Early motorcycles took as much fixing as riding.Georgejdorner (talk) 09:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite see the connection there between riding a motorcycle and an interest in mechanics. I drive a car, but I'm not in the least bit interested in how it works. -- CassiantoTalk 09:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Might I suggest then: ""Ball would wake at 3:00 am and ride his motorcycle to Ruffy-Baumann to start flying practise" or something similar. I really do think "get in some flying" sounds very conversational.
The citation is to Pengelly, so I'll leave to George or SoM to check if Ball's instructors are reported as considering him so or it's simply the the biographer's observation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added "by his instructors" to clarify matters.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"certificate no. 1898 -- Do we need to know this? If so, worthy of a footnote?
This is a standard factoid for articles concerning WWI aviators, found in pretty much all references and used in almost every other similar article in WP.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto money conversion reply. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about setting this and the money conversion in parenthesis?
"Completing his training at Central Flying School, Upavon, he was awarded his wings on 22 January 1916." → "He completed his training at the Central Flying School, Upavon, and was awarded his wings on 22 January 1916."
"He survived being shot down by anti-aircraft fire on 27 March." -- "shot down by anti-aircraft fire"? Would he have be shot down by any other kind?
Open to suggestions but I'm not sure how else we can express it and still be accurate; "flak" I think is anachronistic (though happy to be proved wrong), and "ground fire" or "artillery" are ambiguous. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's fine cheers. -- CassiantoTalk 08:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Three days later, he fought the first of his several combats" --he/his. Redundancy of "his" IMO.
Could the short sentence at the end be combined?
Both done earlier. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are for now, more to follow... -- CassiantoTalk 19:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for taking the time to review, Cass. Aside from those I've responded to, I think I've actioned all the comments above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for thorough and constructive reviewing. Your incisive comments have led to many detailed improvements. As a final favo(u)r, could you please check for any "Yankeeisms" I have committed?Georgejdorner (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, I will try and continue tonight, if not tomorrow. -- CassiantoTalk 19:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Initial fighter posting
sixth paragraph down should start with the noun not a pronoun.
Unless I have missed it, could we link "VC"?
Done both; in the end I spelt out VC and reworded as he obviously hadn't received the award when he was "a budding flyer". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Returning" changed to "upon return".Georgejdorner (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Home front
Is there a way of not repeating ""for conspicuous skill and gallantry"?
It's in the citation and we do say "also" to ack the repetition... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not for Brits I guess, maybe others? Not that fussed though... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Ball was promoted to the substantive rank of lieutenant on 8 December." -- Could we give the year again as a reminder? We last use it at the beginning of the previous paragraph.
Done and linked "substantive rank" for the uninitiated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All but the second para in this section seem very short and stubby. Could some be combined?
Done, tks again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second fighter posting
Looks good.
Final flight and aftermath
Looks good.
Posthumous tributes
Looks good
Post-war legacy
"Following the end of the war, Ball's grave, which had been behind enemy lines, was located at Grave 643 in the Annoeullin Cemetery." -- Handy to know where this cemetery is as it is a new section.
Well it's in Annoeullin, which was linked earlier -- should we say more? I have reworded slightly in any case as the use of "located" may have been confusing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Ball's is the only British grave from the First World War in this extension, the rest being German war graves." →"Ball's is the only British grave from the First World War in this extension, with the rest being German."
Done as suggested but thought we could do without the "with". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Nottingham High School Junior School" its actual name?
Website says "Nottingham High Junior School" so used "Nottingham High's Junior School", which I though worked better here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everything else looks really rather good. -- CassiantoTalk 04:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for your continued interest! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead section
"...was an English fighter pilot of the First World War." →"...was an English fighter pilot during the First World War." Not much different, but the latter sounds better IMO.
Is there a tributary comment we could add onto the end of the final paragraph? I think this would round the lede up nicely and give the reader the sense on just how popular and remarkable this man was.
Great idea! I added a tribute from the master ace, Richthofen.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- All of my points have been answered satisfactorily and I am now happy to add my support. This is a very good article indeed! --CassiantoTalk 20:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many tks Cassianto! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
aviation newsletter, Flight International eight days later Was Flight International really a newsletter at this time? And the sentence needs a comma after International.
I've substituted "journal", which I think is preferable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What was the second bar to the DSO for? The others have a brief summary in the main body, but nothing is said about this one until the formal award citations section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked. Tks for reviewing, Storm! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting article, his letters reminded me of stories from Boy's Own. I guess that many boys of the time internalized the attitudes purveyed there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and all credit to George for pointing out his story to me and suggesting we collaborate on it way back when. Tks for your support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Another memorial tablet is present inside the same church, stated in 1930 to be mounted on the north wall": Either it's there or it's not, regardless of what was once stated.
Removed "stated in 1930" and added a more up-to-date citation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"His father wanted the remains brought back to England for reburial, but the policy put in place by the Imperial War Graves Commission meant that this was not possible. The Commission were working at the time to consolidate the British war graves into fewer cemeteries; 23 British bodies in graves in the location where Ball was buried were moved to the Cabaret Rouge British Cemetery, but at his father's request Ball's grave was allowed to remain.": I'm not following what his father wanted and what the Commission wanted. - Dank (push to talk) 18:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've reconciled this by cross-checking another source. Tks for ce and support, Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, any time. George, I hope this review process hasn't been as unpleasant as you sometimes make it sound. - Dank (push to talk) 23:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - responding to a couple of the points raised by Dank above, as some of the text he was querying was added by me back in 2011.
(i) The bit about the memorial tablet in 1930 was part of what I added two years ago. If you look at the talk page (search for '1930'), you will see that I suggested back then a more up-to-date source (the same as the one Ian used). I should have added that source back then, which would have avoided this quibble. Sorry about that.
(ii) The bit Dank queries above, starting ""His father wanted the remains brought back to England for reburial" is also part of what I added back in 2011. Ian says above that he 'reconciled this by cross-checking another source' I've looked at the edit Ian made, and that change has gone too far, IMO. Dank, what Ball's father wanted was repatriation from France to England. What the Commission wanted was to keep the bodies in France, but consolidate them into fewer cemeteries (in this case, the nearby Cabaret Rouge British Cemetery which is in France, not the UK). The compromise was to allow Ball's body to stay where it was originally buried (i.e. in the local cemetery's extension for German and other war graves), and also to allow Ball to have a private memorial, rather than the standard Commission headstone. This is a fairly important point, as it is relatively rare for such burials abroad to not have this standard Commission headstone. Dank, does that make things clearer? Ian, does this help explain why I think the text about Ball's father wanting the body brought home is correct and should be restored?
Carcharoth, I couldn't access the source you used for your edit, so I checked what Bowyer, as one of Ball's two major biographers, had to say on the subject and rewrote the passage based primarily on that. Even if you vouch for the accuracy of the source you used, I don't think the passage can be restored just as it was because the first line was passive and confusing (who had located Ball's grave?) and there was further confusion owing to Albert Sr's apparent change of mind (first he wanted the body moved, then he didn't). Personally I think it's simpler to leave as is because it does accurately reflect what a key source says -- happy for anyone to double-check that, or voice their opinion, of course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, the first (passive) line was rewritten in an earlier edit - I'm not objecting to that. I'm objecting to your removal of the line about the policy against repatriating the British and Empire dead - this underpins what happened here with Ball's grave. The key sources on the background to this will be the histories of the Imperial War Graves Commission. Those histories will get details like this right, based on the correspondence with Ball's father in the archives kept by the Commission. Without making clear that Ball's father originally wanted the body brought home, you leave the reader with a misleading impression. I will explain on the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Responded there -- my point above is that there was a confusing impression in the text as presented originally, since Ball's father seemed to want his son's body moved, then not moved, without an obvious explanation as to his apparent change of mind. Based on what you've said on the talk page, we may be able to resolve that now but it wasn't clear before. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(iii) While looking over the recent edits, I noticed this one that Dank asked be checked. I don't know who originally added that, but I suspect that 'in an advanced state of nervousness' shouldn't be replaced with 'anxiously'. Could someone check the citation for that?
(iii) Okay, I have corrected the page numbers within the Bowyer cite.
(iii) Either term above would be British understatement to a fault. Ball was temporarily blinded by oil spraying from a holed tank, and left flying helplessly with an engine about to seize.
(iii) After landing, Ball could not at first dictate his combat report because he "...was in so overwrought a state...." After thanking God, Ball admitted he thought a dying German pilot might ram him.
(iii) The squadron's Recording Officer, Lieutenant T. B. Marson, remarked, "In that event, his nerve failed him in the last."Georgejdorner (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(iv) There are other sources on the talk page referring to minor points (a sentence or two here and there) that I had intended to add at some point. I should have done so earlier, and I'm now not sure whether to return to this article and do that, or not. Really, the discussion from two years ago never came to a proper conclusion. Ideally, that would have been sorted before this FAC. So I'm in a bit of a quandary as to what to do now. Would there be any objections if I tied up those loose ends?
Whatever Ian wants to do with those is fine by me. - Dank (push to talk) 02:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly open to improvements.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both of you. I've put more detail about the 'anxious/overwrought' wording on the article talk page. I will do my best to get back to the earlier material on that talk page as soon as possible (either tonight, tomorrow night, or next week). That may give time for Ian to comment as well. Carcharoth (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I've proclaimed to all involved in the writing/editing of this article, during reviews I'm pragmatic rather than idealistic, mainly because stability is always part of the criteria. There's always more detail out there that can be added in and there's been plenty of time over the years to make tweaks to this article; no WP article is ever 'finished'. Therefore if something in the article under review is demonstrably inaccurate according to reliable sources, it should be altered or excised. If OTOH we're simply talking further detail, well I think it's a fairly well-detailed/nuanced summary of his life, career, and legacy as is and such things can wait until after the review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, what I had to say in reply turned out to be longer than expected, so I'll drop a note on your talk page (and ping George as well) rather than write at length here (i.e. I don't want this to distract from this review). But, the point George has made on the article talk page about the 'anxious/overwrought' wording is important - I think you need to look at that and comment there. Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy for George to word that as he sees fit -- as I say, clarifications/corrections may need to be made as necessary, that's not an issue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
I have checked all Pengelly cites. With minor corrections, all of them check out except (68). That one, to my way of thinking is rather "air ware". There is no mention of directorship in the cited pages, and only author's speculation concerning Ball's motivation.
Am in process of checking Bowyer cites.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, all,
As it turned out, my copy of Bowyer is a newer paperback copy. The original cites were from the 1977 hardback. To correct any errors, I had to switch all page numbers to this 2004 edition.
I have been keeping an eye on this review despite not 'dropping in' lately. Tks for all that work George; I only had access to the 1977 edition of Bowyer when we first worked on this article and obviously the paging is different to the 2004 edition -- that was a labour of love on your part! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I am going to motormouth elsewhere about the necessity of checking links, I have to back it up here.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any outstanding issues at this point. I have been able to check about 80% of the cites back to their sources. ODNB is the major source I was unable to check out.
Double-checked ODNB, just a couple of tweaks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made a plain (and rather awkward) amendment to develop an unadorned account of the 5 May 1917 near-ramming.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tks George, I changed a word and trimmed a bit but in the main I think your clarification of what actually happened was just the right thing to do -- definitely worth it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s):SkotyWATC 00:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The final match of the 98th annual edition of the oldest soccer competition in the United States was historic for multiple reasons... breaking an attendance record, and a team three-peating as tournament champions for the first time a in 43 years. GA review for this article was completed last year, and a thorough PR was completed earlier this year. The article is complete in its coverage and is well referenced, but it may still benefit from some additional copy edit suggestions from some of the more experienced reviewers here. Overall, I believe this article is very close to FA level and will benefit from this final review and (hopefully) resulting promotion. Thank you for taking the time to read it and provide feedback. SkotyWATC 00:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
:I'll be going through the prose of this article. ToaNidhiki05 16:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
Overall the prose is very well put together. The text is very good for the most part, and it flows very well.
There are a few duplicate links in the article, but not too many. If you have the duplicate link finder gadget you should be able to see them, but in case I you don't I'll note the ones here (the ones that need to be unlinked will be slashed:
'with two goals from Orr Barouch and a goal each scored by Dominic Oduro and Yamith Cuesta.' (Chicago Fire subsection)
'Chicago went up 2–0 with a goal from Dominic Oduro'
'or visit Chicago Fire at Toyota Park in Bridgeview, Illinois,'
Excellent. I've cleaned these up. I'm not familiar with the tool, so thanks for providing the details. --SkotyWATC 21:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
Pretty sure that 'This was the 98th edition of U.S. Open Cup...' should have a 'the' in front of the event name (ie. 'the U.S. Open Cup'). ToaNidhiki05 01:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, good catch. Not sure how this one slipped through the cracks. Thanks for finding it. Fixed. --SkotyWATC 15:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2010 Major League Soccer season should be linked. ToaNidhiki05 01:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was linked in the body ("previous season" in Road to the Final section) section, but not in the lead. No good reason to not do it in the lead too (especially since the text of the link is different). Fixed. --SkotyWATC 15:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Road to the final
'In 2011, MLS, which has teams that play in both the United States and Canada...' MLS needs a 'the' in front of it; you could add one and eliminate the 'in 2011', because it has already been established the tournament took place in 2011. ToaNidhiki05 01:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'U.S. Open Cup matches, "for me...' add 'saying' before the quote. ToaNidhiki05 01:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great suggestion. Fixed. --SkotyWATC 15:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-match
I would add a comma after 'as he replaced Carlos de los Cobos'. ToaNidhiki05 18:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --SkotyWATC 21:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing here, I would add a comma after 'matches two days before the game'. ToaNidhiki05 18:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --SkotyWATC 21:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comma should be added after 'The Sounders were playing well'. ToaNidhiki05 18:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --SkotyWATC 21:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Match
Not a prose issue, but to err on the side of caution a citation might be needed to confirm Grazzini began the game on the bench. ToaNidhiki05 18:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added another footnote for the US Soccer match report which notes the starting players as well as those on the bench. --SkotyWATC 21:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd remove the second use of 'match' in 'As the match passed the 30 minute mark, Seattle began to take control of the match'. ToaNidhiki05 18:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "of the match" at the end of that sentence. --SkotyWATC 21:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post-match
Add a comma after 'midfielder Daniel Hernandez on Twitter'. ToaNidhiki05 18:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comma added. --SkotyWATC 21:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would link the first mention of the 2012 U.S. Open Cup, since it hadn't been linked anywhere else. ToaNidhiki05 18:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, good suggestion. Link added to "2012 edition". --SkotyWATC 21:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to read the article and make suggestions. I've followed up on everything you've found so far and look forward to addressing more. Thanks again. --SkotyWATC 15:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I've noted a few more issues that need to be fixed, as well as some duplicate links. Once these are fixed I'll be more than happy to support (just as a note, I will be gone until around 11:30 PM EST today so if I don't respond immediately, that is why). ToaNidhiki05 18:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've followed up on the remaining issues. Your time and attention in this review is appreciated. --SkotyWATC 21:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good job on fixing those issues; although a full source check has not been made, I think a support is warranted due to the sheer quality of the prose. ToaNidhiki05 18:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – I provided a bunch of comments on the article at its peer review, and it looks in much better shape now than it did back then. There are still some issues that I can detect, though:
Chicago Fire: The first sentence of the section says that the Fire had five pre-2011 final appearances, but the last sentence says they gained "their seventh trip to the U.S. Open Cup final." Which is it?
Good catch, I don't know how such a glaring mistake has made it through so many reviews. I changed "seventh" to "sixth" and I've double checked the sources to make sure this is correct. --SkotyWATC 04:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Venue selection: It would be nice if two straight sentences didn't end with "in order to meet demand". The first two words of both aren't even needed anyway.
Good suggestion. I've removed the first instance completely and shortened the second. --SkotyWATC 04:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis: "however, the Fire had improved throughout the year by improving the play of their wingers and midfielders." Bit of a prose redundancy here with "improved" and "improving".
I changed it to "the Fire had improved throughout the year through improved play from their wingers and midfielders." --SkotyWATC 04:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First half: The last sentence of the section is uncited; since it should be easy to find something for this, I recommend doing so because other reviewers will expect to see all of the content cited.
I added a reference for that. There were a number that could have fit.
The same goes for the end of a couple paragraphs in the Second half section.Giants2008 (Talk) 00:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same. Fixed. Thank you for taking the time to review the article again. I'm glad that you found the things you did this time. These are great improvements. --SkotyWATC 04:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Now that all of my comments have been addressed, I'm convinced that the article meets the FA criteria. Nice work on the page. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - all OK (CC, CC OTRS). Sources and authors provided - tweaked a few Commons categories. GermanJoe (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review the images! --SkotyWATC 04:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"enter eight of its U.S.-based teams in the tournament." should clarify how many US teams there were 8 of its 10 or 20 or whatever.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"had reached the U.S. Open Cup final five times". I am guessing that most of these are recent (in comparison to 98 tournaments). I might add something like "between YYYY and YYYY" to clarify how recent these appearances have been.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "in their 14-year history" to the sentence to add this context. --SkotyWATC 01:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"winning four out of five of the tournaments." I would also be interested to know the last win. Maybe add ", most recently YYYY". You may want to split this into two sentences.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. I added "most recently in 2006". --SkotyWATC 01:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why New York sent reserves.
The USOC is, for some teams, less of a priority than doing well in league play. It's an additional burden on teams above and beyond the regular MLS schedule. New York is a team that didn't prioritize the tournament as much that year. Ironically, the backlash from New York fans because of this caused New York to put more of a priority on the tournament than they had been. But this article isn't about that. --SkotyWATC 01:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that depends. In the USOC tournament, they defeated F.C. New York in the third round played 3 weeks earlier (on June 28th) to losing to the Chicago Fire in the semifinals. In MLS season play, they had just lost to D.C. United two days earlier on July 9th. Since the quote from the New York coach cites "fatigue" as the reason for playing reserves, it's probably worth adding this context (about playing 2 days earlier). I've added "New York had lost to DC United in league play just 2 days earlier." with a reference to provide more context here. Good questions. I hope this helps. --SkotyWATC 01:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. Open Cup was at stake, however as I kind of explained above, clubs are competing in multiple tournaments every year and, as a result, are forced to prioritize/deprioritize some games over others when there's a short turnaround. I hope this makes sense. I know it's kind of unusual for American sports, but internationally, soccer clubs face these types of prioritization decisions all the time. For example, Manchester United plays games in the English Premier League, the UEFA Champions League, and the FA Cup (similar to America's U.S. Open Cup) pretty much every season. Sometimes the scheduling of these games is very tight and they have to decide which games they'll play their best players in. --SkotyWATC 01:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little surprised to discover that there is an article for bicycle kick. I didn't expect that. Wikilinked. Great suggestion. --SkotyWATC 01:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There sort of is. It's a redirect to an appropriate section in the goal article. Wikilink added. --SkotyWATC 01:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis
"unexpectedly defeated Real Salt Lake on September 28," needs a citation not just for the result, but also for the prediction.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the word "unexpectedly". I supposed it was unexpected because of the recent coaching change, but the word is not necessary, and you're right, it's a borderline issue with WP:NPOV. --SkotyWATC 01:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure these have ever been made public. The source I point to does not go into detail. I've heard that it has to do with quality of the field (turf vs. grass), lighting, separate locker rooms, broadcasting booth, etc. but since I don't have a source (and I doubt a publicly available one exists), this is all I can put in the article. --SkotyWATC 01:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you follow "United States Soccer Federation" with (USSF) so you don't have to write out the whole term in subsequent uses.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. Most of the time the term "U.S. Soccer" is used in the article, however, I've updated the 3 other places where the whole term was used to "USSF". --SkotyWATC 01:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should not use two different nicknames, especially if you only define one at the beginning. Either start with United States Soccer Federation (USSF or U.S. Soccer) or (preferably) use one nicknamethroughout. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've standardized the article on "U.S. Soccer" wherever a nickname is used. This is more in-line with out it's referred to among fans and in news reports. --SkotyWATC 23:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Venue selection
"On August 26, 2011, the United States Soccer Federation announced the potential sites for the final, depending on the outcome of the semifinals." random, by committee or is this the bid process below?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the bid process. --SkotyWATC 01:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saying it was determined is somewhat mystical. You should mention the bid process here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Hawks Nest" sounds like either a bleacher section or a standing room only section. Could you clarify what it is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified that they're "bleacher seats". --SkotyWATC 01:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilinked all of them. Good stuff. These seem obvious to most of the people who have reviewed this already, but they're very familiar with soccer nuances and rules. Thank you for these suggestions. --SkotyWATC 01:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you piping goal mouth to goal all of a sudden and leaving post unlinked later in the sentence?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about missing rebound. Fixed. Also, I think I misunderstood your request for the goal post wikilink. I've moved it to the word "post" from "goal mouth". I think I've found an appropriate wikilink for "goal mouth" here: Association_football_pitch#Goals. Hopefully that addresses these remaining concerns. --SkotyWATC 00:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post-match
"Most of the record crowd remained after the game as they watched Seattle players and coaches engaged in the post match ceremonies and celebrations on the field." - Please describe these. Were they braodcast?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's a picture of the club celebrating at the top of the article. They may have been broadcast, but I don't have a reference for that. The specifics (from the source referenced) are that they were handed t-shirts and awarded their trophy. I've reworded it a bit "engaged in the post match trophy awarding ceremony and celebrated on the field." I hope this works better. --SkotyWATC 01:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. It probably would have been a municipal airport since this wasn't being pulled around by some jet. Just a small propeller plane. That said, I have no source for that detail. --SkotyWATC 01:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't say, just that it was a "scarf". IIRC it said "Seattle Sounders FC", but if I put that in, it would be WP:OR. What's in the article now, matches the source referenced. --SkotyWATC 01:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually mentioned in the source. I've reworded the latter half of the sentence to this: "over Seattle and Bellevue in the afternoon and early evening respectively, in celebration of their victory." --SkotyWATC 01:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no source that says how it was divided up. MLS teams (and the league) are always very secretive about player salaries, prize money, sponsorship funds, etc., so it's by no means unusual that this level of detail is just not available. --SkotyWATC 01:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the following sentence with a reference: "In the Champions League, Seattle won their group and were eventually knocked out of the tournament in the semifinals by Mexican club Santos Laguna." --SkotyWATC 01:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Images
Images are all PD, but; the WP:CAPTIONS are sometimes ungrammatical. The use of the period seems to be independent of whether the caption is a full sentence or not.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing the images. I've made updates to the captions I thought were problematic. If you still think there are issues with the captions that need to be addressed, please provide specific suggestions. --SkotyWATC 05:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did the GA review on this article, and had remarkably few quibbles then. I don't expect I'll have many now either.
In "Road to the Final", you mention "top-six" three times in a sentence and a half. Perhaps add a little variety by noting the specific position Chicago placed in 2010?
Agreed this is a little redundant. I've removed the last one. --SkotyWATC 06:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would Hyndman's complaints about the host selection process be better in the relevant section rather than the Sounders' road to the finals section? Not necessarily asking for a change here though.
I did consider this a couple of times previously. In the end, I felt it was best to include in the context of the game he was commenting on. It also serves as a bit of foreshadowing of the last section which covers the hosting controversy. That section I feel stands on it's own and didn't need repeating of Hyndman's comments to cover to topic fully. Let me know if you have concerns about any of my reasoning for it's placement, and I'm happy to replay and/or make changes. --SkotyWATC 06:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nine days later ticket sales surpassed 30,000... - missing comma?
Fire coach Frank Klopas made two substitutes late in the match... - should that be "made two substitutions"?
That's probably better. Changed. --SkotyWATC 06:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I might wikilink stoppage time, though it is a redirect to a relevant section of the association football article.
Wikilinked. Good suggestion. Thanks. --SkotyWATC 06:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to comment that the referee was missing from the "match officials" part of the results table, then found that he was listed in the upper right corner. This is probably a flaw in the template design, but I would like to see all four officials listed together.
I added the referee to the match officials section too. Probably fine to list him twice actually. --SkotyWATC 06:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who were the other two finalists for "player of the tournament"?
I've added a mention of the other two finalists (both from the Richmond Kickers) with wikilinks. I've also verified that the reference supports this (which it does). --SkotyWATC 06:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Following the final, MLS and U.S. Soccer officials began meeting to discuss ... - I would simplify that down to "Following the final, MLS and U.S. Soccer met to discuss...".
Changed per your suggestion. --SkotyWATC 06:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's about it for now. Resolute 00:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a second pass through the article and providing more suggestions. Your help and feedback is greatly appreciated. --SkotyWATC 06:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine example of an article on a single match. Resolute 15:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from ArsenalFan700
I added the template for the Chicago Fire's matches as they have been in quite a few Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cups and some MLS Cups as well. However, when I added the template I saw that the Seattle Sounders FC matches template was added in a different format from what I am used to... is that right? I just want to make sure because if it is then I would recommend the same be done for the Chicago Fire template. Also, there are a lot of red links in the Chicago Fire matches template, I will create those pages when I can, just thought I let you know. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. The format looks the same to me, so I don't see a problem. If you have further comments on this topic, let's take them to the talk page since they're not really related to reviewing the content of the article. Thanks! --SkotyWATC 03:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I noticed that, I just wanted to get this to your attention. Anyway, I made the change and it worked fine so my problem is fixed... now I need Ford to make his pro debut and I am set. Cheers mate and any more questions will be on the talk page. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Omnedon (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article was promoted to Good Article status recently, and has since received a peer review. I believe it is now ready for consideration as a Featured Article, and I am ready to make any necessary improvements. Omnedon (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Minor: Why don't you put "worth over $2,000,000 in 2010" in brackets next to 100,000 and avoid a whole section for a single note?—indopug (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I have used this method in other articles, but they all had multiple similar notes. I've moved this one to the body. Omnedon (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - all OK (PD-age, own work). Sources and authors provided.
Tweaked a few license tags and added a source link to Encyclopedia Virginia.GermanJoe (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concerns and quibbles were all addressed during the peer review. Very nice article -- good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is a rather good article, and it's great to see that so much work has gone into this important topic. However, I don't think that it is of FA standard at present. Some statements are needlessly imprecise, and the article would benefit from material which provides greater context for Davis' actions and explains his motivations. My specific comments are:
When did the family move to Wilkinson County, Mississippi?
Within a year of the first move. Omnedon (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When did Davis enter West Point?
He started in 1824. Omnedon (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Davis was assigned to the 1st Infantry Regiment and was stationed at Fort Crawford, Wisconsin. Davis was still in Mississippi" - the "still" doesn't seem appropriate given that he was Wisconsin in the previous sentence
Agreed; this has been clarified. Omnedon (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Taylor became Davis' commanding officer at Fort Crawford in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin Territory" - when?
This was in 1829. Omnedon (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why did Davis resign from the Army in 1835? - the text implies that this was so that he could marry Sarah Knox Taylor, but this is never explicitly stated.
I've added more detail, and have explicitly stated the reason for his resignation. Omnedon (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Joseph desired to have his youngest brother nearby and gave Brierfield to Jefferson, who eventually developed Brierfield Plantation there" - when did these events occur?
The previous point having been addressed, this chronology is now more clear. Joseph desired both his brother and Sarah to be there. Omnedon (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Being bored, and feeling somewhat better, Davis returned to Mississippi with Pemberton" - when?
This is not documented in the sources I could find; but the visit to Cuba doesn't seem to have been very long. I've added more detail on the voyage. Omnedon (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did Davis really "worship" the memory of his first wife? This sounds rather extreme.
Sources do indicate that he was deeply affected by the loss, and was reclusive for years afterwards. Omnedon (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do they use the term "worship"? Even allowing for Victorian-era sentimentality, this seems over the top. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it's "over the top", and I believe the source used that term; but I suppose "revered" or "honored" could work better in the article. Omnedon (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to belabor the point, as I agree a different word works better here; but another illustration of the degree to which Davis was affected is the fact that he insisted on visiting Sarah's grave on his honeymoon with Varina. Omnedon (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"1840 Davis attended a Democratic meeting in Vicksburg and, to his surprise, was chosen as a delegate to the party's state convention in Jackson." - was this his first involvement in organised politics?
Yes -- clarified. Omnedon (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"in 1843 became a candidate for the state House of Representatives" - did he stand for a particular district/seat?
I've added more detail on this. Omnedon (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who were "Margaret L. Kempe and William Burr Howell"? I'm not sure why they need to be named in the article
This forms a link with the more notable connection, the governor (William's father). Omnedon (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest dropping the names of the parents if they're not notable or didn't have any other influence on Davis' life Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's been done. Omnedon (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"During this time Davis was convinced to become a candidate for the House of Representatives" - state or federal?
It was the United States House of Representatives. Omnedon (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Davis resigned his house seat in June" - is the specific date of this known?
I have not found a specific date in the several sources I've checked, but one states that it was early June. Omnedon (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why did President Polk agree to Davis' proposal to rearm the regiment, and what did this involve? (had Davis arranged for a stock of these weapons, or were they sourced after the event?)
It wasn't really a re-arming, as it was a new regiment. Polk had promised Davis the weapons if he would remain long enough for an important vote. The weapons were apparently already in stock, but not yet widely used. Omnedon (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Governor Brown of Mississippi appointed Davis to take the place of Senator Jesse Speight" - was this to the state or federal senate?
Speight was a United States senator. Omnedon (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"He became a regent of the Smithsonian Institution, served on the Committee on Military Affairs, and was made a member of the Library Committee." - when?
December 1848. Omnedon (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Regarding Cuba, Davis declared that it "must be ours" to "increase the number of slaveholding constituencies."" - when?
1848, as stated earlier in the paragraph; I haven't been able to find a specific date. Omnedon (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why did Narciso López select Davis to lead a military campaign in Cuba?
He had already contacted General Worth, who died before deciding whether or not to lead the expedition. Davis was known to be interested in Cuba and concerned about the presence of a Spanish holding so near to the United States. However, it might be original research to assume that this was the reason why Lopez next approached Davis. Lopez also approached Lee at Davis' suggestion, but Lee also turned down the offer. Omnedon (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The Senate made Davis chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs" - when?
December 3, 1849. Omnedon (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"When his term expired he was elected to the same seat (by the Mississippi legislature, as the constitution mandated at the time)." - when was this?
December 29, 1849. Omnedon (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"In this capacity, Davis gave Congress four annual reports (in December of each year)" - was the routine reporting really his most important achievement in the position? It doesn't seem worth mentioning to be honest.
It isn't claimed that this was his most important achievement. However, there are a few other items I've found that can be mentioned in this section. Omnedon (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"He promoted the Gadsden Purchase of today's southern Arizona from Mexico." - how did he do this, and what was his motivation? (was this related to his official role as the secretary of war, or his long-standing support of expanding the US?)
The immediate reason was that it would have provided an easier route for the railroad, which of course was important for expansion. Omnedon (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"He also increased the size of the regular army from 11,000 to 15,000" - why was this considered necessary?
It was not considered large enough to do all that was required of it. Omnedon (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The material on Davis opposing secession comes out of nowhere in the "Return to Senate" section - I'd suggest including some historical context to explain why he was taking up the issue
Agreed. I've added some context, and a few more details. Omnedon (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Nominally serving in the Senate" seems a misnomer - he was still a senator, even if he wasn't able to make it to Washington Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed -- fixed. Omnedon (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Davis was chosen partly because he was a well-known and experienced moderate who had served in a president's cabinet. In meetings of his own Mississippi legislature, Davis had argued against secession, but when a majority of the delegates opposed him, he gave in." - should this be in the previous section?
Second sentence was misplaced chronologically, yes. And in terms of the previous section, that sentence would be somewhat redundant, as it already indicates that he was not in favor of secession. Omnedon (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Davis had a very small circle of military advisers, and largely made the main strategic decisions on his own (or approved those suggested by Lee)" - this sentence is confusing: it mainly argues that that Davis acted as the supreme war leader with few advisers, but the material in the brackets then contradicts this by saying that he also rubber stamped Lee's proposals
I don't see this as contradictory. It's true that Davis preferred to manage things directly, but he also had a close relationship with Lee and respected his views. However, I can see that some might interpret the phrase in parentheses as rubber-stamping. I'll clarify this. Omnedon (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"He attempted strategic offensives when he felt that military success would both shake Northern self-confidence and strengthen the peace movements there. The campaigns met defeat at Antietam (1862) and Gettysburg (1863)" - what about the Confederate Heartland Offensive?
I've mentioned this in that paragraph, and am in the process of finding a good reference to cover it. Omnedon (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Once the war began, there were frequent changes to the cabinet." - why did this occur? - did Davis sack under-performers (real or perceived), or did they resign? (or both)
I've added some details on the reasons for some of these changes. Omnedon (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it correct to call Toombs an "advisor"? He seems to have held a cabinet position.
The reference uses the term; particularly given Davis' tendency to involve himself directly in various matters, this seems accurate. Omnedon (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Separately, the issue of slavery did not sit well with many European countries" - this seems an understatement given the issue's importance in the UK (probably the most important potential source of international support)
This has been strengthened. Omnedon (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably also worth noting that Davis did a poor job of choosing representatives in Europe - Amanda Foreman's book A World on Fire provides some rather pointed analysis of this
I will search my sources for more details on this. Do you have easy access to the Foreman book? If so, is there any chance you'd care to contribute something on this subject? Omnedon (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add something Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just searched the book (I have an e-book version), and couldn't find this. I think that it's in there somewhere, but it's not so obvious. There's some criticism of Davis' "King Cotton Diplomacy" here, and the other Disunion articles are well worth checking. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Davis gave speeches to soldiers and politicians but largely ignored the common people and thereby failed to harness Confederate nationalism by directing the energies of the people into winning the war" - this sentence is a bit complex and wordy
Agreed -- modified. Omnedon (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Taxes were very low in the Confederacy compared to the Union" - the previous paragraph says that income tax was higher in the south
I'm not sure why there were conflicting statements, but the initial statement you quote is correct regarding the earlier days of the war. Later, more taxes were implemented, but there were various taxes, and they raised a relatively small percentage of Confederate revenue. I have tweaked this area, and will add a bit more detail as well. Omnedon (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Final days of the Confederacy" section seems over-detailed compared to the very high-level treatment of the rest of the war and Davis' travels. I was surprised to not see anything on the decision to arm slaves in which Davis played a role.
The war itself is well-covered in various other articles. As to the "Final days" section, this deals with events in which Davis was directly involved, including his flight and capture. I will see what can be added about the arming of slaves; that probably is worthy of mention. Omnedon (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the coverage of the war really establishes how weak a position the CSA was in due to the North's much greater population and economic capacity (not to mention its effective navy), and the resultant need for either risky offensive operations or a grinding defensive to end the war with a negotiated peace with someone other than Lincoln (which came fairly close in 1864). Adding this material could be used to put Davis' actions, and his failings, into perspective: he faced a very difficult situation, and made things worse overall.
I've added a paragraph that describes the disparity between the North and South in terms of resources. At the end of the "Strategic failures" section, your last sentence is covered. Omnedon (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can more be said about how Davis saw his role? Was his decision to focus on the military side of his responsibilities due to his background or personal preferences, or was it forced upon him?
Davis wanted to be a general, not the president, and due to his military background tended to focus on military matters. It was his preference to deal with those matters himself, and he did not delegate well. Omnedon (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On that topic, when discussing the comparisons of Lincoln and Davis you could also note that historians regard Lincoln (a self-taught amateur in military affairs) as being a much superior military leader than Davis, despite Davis' extensive professional training and experience. I think that I've read some commentary arguing that Davis had a much-inflated view of his abilities as a military commander during the Civil War.
The comparison between Lincoln and Davis as military leaders was mentioned in the last paragraph of "Strategic failures"; I've added a bit more detail. Omnedon (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"but this treatment continued for some months until he was finally given better quarters" - when was this change made?
I've been able to confirm from multiple sources that this was in the autumn, but no specific date is given. Omnedon (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"In December 1868 the court rejected a motion to nullify the indictment" - which court?
It was a federal court. Omnedon (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What were Lost Cause ceremonies? Were these events given specifically in honour of Davis, or more general commemorations of the Confederacy?
In general, the Lost Cause ceremonies were held for many years after the war and helped the South deal with their defeat. As to these particular ones, I've not been able to determine if they were given in Davis' honor, but we do know they were events at which Davis appeared. Context suggests that the events would have occurred anyway. I've added a sentence that gives a bit of context to the Lost Cause. Omnedon (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know what disease(s) resulted in Davis' death?
It was diagnosed as acute bronchitis complicated by malaria. Omnedon (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have the various memorials to Davis received any opposition?
I've done some checking and haven't found much on this. Most memorials to Davis date from a century ago or more. My guess is that a modern memorial to Davis would receive some opposition, but that's speculation. The road renaming in Virginia is mentioned in the "Legacy" section, and there was disagreement about that as described in the citation. Some memorials are lasting by their very nature; but it is not uncommon for things that are named for famous people (such as roads) to be renamed later. Not quite sure how to address this further. Omnedon (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This 2002 NY Times story discusses opposition to naming a highway in Washington state after Davis. There was also recently debate over removing his name from a park in Memphis [41], and this 2008 story notes opposition to erecting a statue of Davis. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is all excellent material; I appreciate you finding it. I've added a paragraph that deals with these issues, which I hope will help with the following item as well. Omnedon (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ending the article with fairly unimportant material on stamps seems a bit disappointing. A "legacy and modern perceptions"-type section which discusses how he's seen by historians and the general public would be more satisfactory. Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your initial statement, and I've reordered this section; the paragraph about the restoration of his full citizenship seemed more appropriate. As for the views of historians, these are mentioned in various places throughout the article. Omnedon (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with indopug's suggestion below that the article should end with a section like those in the Nixon, Reagan and Truman articles which provides a summary of modern historians' overall assessment of Davis. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will work up something on this. I don't wish to rehash material already quoted, but I suppose you are both correct that a summary would be helpful. Omnedon (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a brief summary. As for the view of the general public, I'm not sure how to go about this, as it seems that this would be difficult to cite. Omnedon (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This material needs to be referenced, and is a bit on the brief side. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I felt that it had all been covered already earlier in the article, which is why I did not think to include references; but I will do that. I will see how it can be expanded. Omnedon (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am confident I can make these improvements, but it will take a bit of time. I'll get started on it. Thanks for the input. Omnedon (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having begun on this, I appreciate your detailed and constructive criticism. These improvements will definitely make for a better article. Omnedon (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I'm hold off responding until you finish tweaking the article, but please let me know if I can clarify any of my comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've now addressed all of the issues. Do you have any other input, whether on new issues or further thoughts on the existing points? Omnedon (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've just marked some material as needing a citation, but this should be easily done. As all my comments are now resolved I'm pleased to support the article's promotion to FA status. Nick-D (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I've cited the burial in Hollywood Cemetery. Originally, there was a claim that his tenure as President of the CSA was not listed on his monument, but it turns out that it is listed, just on another side of the monument from some of his other accomplishments. Hence, the whole sentence become somewhat superfluous. Omnedon (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please avoid using templates like "Done" or similar graphical templates per FA-guidelines, as they possibly slow down page load time or cause problems in the FA-nomination list. GermanJoe (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of that; I've removed the template. Omnedon (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Legacy section, putting it bluntly, is a bit of a bore. It's basically just minutiae—stamps, roads, libraries, birthdays. On the other hand, a historical reevaluation, ala the Nixon, Reagan or Truman FAs, would be of much greater interest to the general reader (indeed, they are the most interesting sections in those articles). Also, as Nick-D said above, you could end the article on a high note.—indopug (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've already reordered that section so as to end with the paragraph on the restoration of his citizenship. I found the Carter statement about "last act of reconciliation in the Civil War" interesting. I'll see what I can find re a historical reevaluation, but it will not be quite the same; Davis is much more distant in history than the others. His evaluation by historians is mentioned throughout the article as well. Omnedon (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
also, you should crop the infobox pic. Too much blank space; the main purpose of the infobox pic is to be vale to identify him.—indopug (talk) 06:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point -- I've used another version of that image already on Commons that does not have the empty space at the top. Omnedon (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article appears well-structured and well-formed, and succeeds in covering the subject in a suitably thorough and informative way without becoming overly verbose. I see too that the smaller particulars raised above have also now been addressed. Good work! ╠╣uw[talk] 13:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the opening sentence, given the ambiguity of American, perhaps clarify "United States"? I like to keep a worldwide focus for FAC's, and American/United States is one of the issues I worry about. Otherwise, nothing in the first sentence definitively says it's about the USA (since you don't spell out American Civil War, which I don't mind if you would clarify the country)
When did Davis's paternal grandparents arrive in the US?
I've narrowed this down to the early 1700s. I'll see if other sources have more specifics. Omnedon (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Abraham Lincoln was born 8 months later, less than 100 miles (160 km) to the northeast in Hodgenville, Kentucky." - while interesting, I wonder, is it trivia? IDK, torn on this one.
I know what you mean; but personally I feel it is more than trivia, since the two men ended up being leaders of opposing nations. It was an interesting early link, I felt. Omnedon (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True. Alright, I'm OK with it being there :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"In addition to bouts with malaria, battle wounds from fighting in the Mexican–American War, and a chronic eye infection that made it impossible for him to endure bright light, he also suffered from trigeminal neuralgia, a nerve disorder that causes severe pain in the face." - should probably be split up, maybe with semicolon?
Yes, good point. I will break it up. Omnedon (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" of $100,000 (worth more than $2,000,000 in 2010[61])" - why in 2010 USD?
This was added a while ago, hence the 2010; I will change it to 2013. The estimate is cited but it isn't possible to come up with a precise figure due to many factors, so "more than $2,000,000" is still quite valid. Omnedon (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've used a template for this in the past, {{Formatprice|{{Inflation|US|100000|1849}}}}, which gives you this: 3.66 million. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since it had been a while since she was mentioned, I'd love seeing "his wife" when you mention "Varina later wrote"
Thanks for taking the time to review it! Omnedon (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Def! I figured, I can't just nom something for FAC and not review others, especially when there is a topic as important as this up! Thanks for the quick replies. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Having already taken this article to GA status, I think it would be a good candidate for FAC. There is currently only a handful of Morocco-related FAs and I think this one would be a good addition to the collection, especially given the importance of Volubilis as a World Heritage Site. Prioryman (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on images: I see you're trying to do three images next to each other. On my wife's netbook (1024*600 pixels) this results in two rows of images and lots of whitespace. File:Volubilis panorama cropped.jpg is also at the absolute maximum on such a system as well. Since this kind of resolution is still fairly common, you may want to refactor the images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a go at reformatting it. What browser is your wife using? Prioryman (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried both Firefox and Chrome. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've resized the images - hopefully this will resolve the problem. Prioryman (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the random BOLD in the text is distracting. It should be plain text. — Crisco 1492 (talk)
Expanded abbreviations of inscription. What is the usual way to handle this? Maybe there should be a footnote with the actual text, or the expansions could be indicated in parentheses. A curiosity - Aurelius is spelt "Avrellio" in the Latin - is the double L a Roman typo? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is a standard format. The original text, which is given in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, can be seen in the file description for File:Volubilis Triumphal Arch.jpg. As you can see, it's not at all easy to read and for that reason I took the decision to expand the inscription fully rather than sprinkling it with parentheses for expansions and restored text. The double L is indeed a Roman typo - not easy to fix if you're carving in stone! Prioryman (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It is also mentioned by Pliny the Elder" What did he say about it?
Very little, he merely states its location - see [43]. Prioryman (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The city became the administrative centre of the Roman province of Mauretania Tingitana." When?
I wasn't able to determine that - I suspect it probably isn't known. Prioryman (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Around 280 AD" Please check throughout the article.
See WP:ERA: "Do not use CE or AD unless the date or century would be ambiguous without it." I've used AD the first time I referred to an AD date. All dates thereafter are AD dates, so there should be no ambiguity. Prioryman (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" centuries after it was lost to Rome had relinquished control of it. By the time the Arabs had arrived in 708, they found the city"
I don't think "relinquished control" really works - it makes it sound like the Romans voluntarily surrendered the city, which they plainly didn't. I've changed this wording to "after the end of Roman control". I've made the other suggested change. Prioryman (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"fled to Morocco after escaping from Syria following " → "escaped to Morocco from Syria following "
Mostly looking at reference formatting in this pass:
Everyone's favorite FAC complaint: you've got the wrong little horizontal lines for date ranges throughout the Bibliography (I think they're okay in the Footnotes). They should be en-dashes (–).
I've only found one example, Conant - were there more? Prioryman (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You usually, but do not always, include publisher location for books. Sometimes that's actually unavailable, but need to check Carrasco, Fentress, Halsall, and Wright refs.
I've added a publisher location for Carrasco, Fentress is unnecessary now (see below) and in the cases of Halsall and Wright it was, I thought, unnecessary to give the location given that they are university presses (Cambridge and Chicago). In previous FACs I've been advised that I don't need to add locations in the case of university presses. Prioryman (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If FAC practice is that university presses don't require locations, far be it for me to argue. After all, I wimp out on location issues in my own articles by just declining to provide them! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the standard is, but I don't usually see UK locations with their county cited, as you have in the Davies ref. Perhaps that should just read "Chalfont St Peter, UK" instead? I tend to omit publication locations in my articles, so someone else may want to chime in here.
I honestly don't know, I've tended to include counties but if anyone else knows for sure I'd like to hear their input. Prioryman (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something is broken in your template for the Fentress reference. Also, that work is OCLC 792763664.
I've taken it out - I can't find any references to it in the article. I suspect I probably included something that was referenced to it and later removed it, but forgot to take out the bibliography reference as well. Prioryman (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not strictly required, but if there's an original publication date for the Grimal work you cite in translation, that could be included (I'm not able to determine it, as I do not have access to the source at the moment, and the Grimal work went through many editions in French between 1954–2001).
I don't have it to hand - I'll see if I can look it up. Prioryman (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The translation is of the original 1954 edition. How should I add that date to the citation? Prioryman (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you reference the original 1889 publication for the Harris work? If so, it's OCLC 249376810. If you're working from the 2011 reprint (ISBN9781848855731), the reference should reflect that.
The original. Thanks for the OCLC. Prioryman (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the correct OCLC for the Shabeeny reference is 165576157.
I'm not sure the correct OCLC for the Windus source. I assume you're working off the digital copy, which is OCLC 642363595, but the big concern here is that WorldCat doesn't seem to agree with you about the publisher or publication location, so either my OCLC number is wrong, or you've got an error in this entry.
Nope, I'm working off an original hard copy. The publisher and publication location are as given on the frontispiece and in the British Library catalogue. This is most likely a case of WorldCat being wrong, or at least of them having incomplete information about this book. Prioryman (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WorldCat's listings for this were a mess to wade through. Doesn't help that it was apparently nearly simultaneously printed in three countries, but I finally found the entry that matches your material. OCLC 64409967. Sorry for my initially sloppy checking there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for finding that. Added it. Prioryman (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problems with the Wharton source's OCLC, though: it's 359173.
And then there's the www.sitedevolubilis.org site. For one thing, you call one of the pages "House of the Knight" in the Footnotes, but "House of the Cavalier" in the References.But more importantly, why is this a reliable source? It's a very nice-looking resource, but it appears to be a product of Andante Travels, so I could use a little convincing as to its reliability.
It's sponsored by Andante but not authored by them, quite clearly; see the credits page at [44], which indicates that the authors are professional archaeologists and conservation officials. UCL is University College, London and INSAP is the Moroccan government's Institut National des Sciences de l'Archéologie et du Patrimoine. It's the official website of the archaeological site - I found out about the website when I was out there. As for the naming, this is a bit of confusion (not on my part) between English and French. The English-language sources use "House of the Knight" pretty much universally. The inscription at the site itself is only in French and refers to the "Maison du Chevalier". The website has rather unhappily split the difference and translated "Chevalier" as "Knight", in contrast to the more conventional English name. Prioryman (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. That's the little convincing I needed. Objections to the site's reliability withdrawn. As for the Knight/Chevalier thing, my biggest concern is that Footnote 48 doesn't match its parent Reference. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean about the names not matching. I've now fixed this. Prioryman (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have several pretty solid print sources here, but I can't help but notice the lack of any scholarly journal coverage for what's a fairly significant regional archaeological site. A quicky perusal of literature gets me sources in the Oxford Journal of Archaeology and the Journal of Cultural Heritage. Is there any material there which the books cited do not yet cover?
I looked, but the sources I found were very specialised, focusing on very small-scale or specialised topics - not very useful for an article that is intended to be a general overview. 20:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll agree the major journal sources are fairly specific and technical. That said, one of those sources (Daniels, Robert (1995). "Punic Influence in the Domestic Architecture of Roman Volubilis (Morocco)". Oxford Journal of Archaeology. 14 (1): 79–95. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0092.1995.tb00057.x.) seems to have some comments about the style of the local architecture that might be worthwhile. I'll agree that there's not much to do with the analysis of the origins of the marbles used in the site's construction (Antonelli, Fabrizio; Lazzarini, Lorenzo; Cancelliere, Stefano; Dessandier, David (2009). "Volubilis (Meknes, Morocco): Archaeometric study of the white and coloured marbles imported in the Roman age". Journal of Cultural Heritage. 10 (1): 116–123. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2008.04.006. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)) unless you feel that it's worth remarking on from how far away the Romans shipped stone to build the place. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at both, but to be honest I didn't think there was much worth including. I note your point about Romans shipping stone long distances but this isn't unique to Volubilis - it's certainly a testament to the scale of the Roman trading network but by no means something which is so exceptional that it deserves a special mention, in my opinion. Prioryman (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably fair. Although, mostly just being contrary here... you do cite UNESCO to note that other buildings are made of local limestone; that might be an interesting contrast. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to get a chance to dig into the article structure and prose a little later. Neutral for now regarding promotion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reference formatting is in a much better place now, and I've had a chance to look at some of the rest of the article:
Overlinking. There is some. Morocco and Meknes are each linked twice in the lead. In the body, duplicate links (and there location) include: Meknes (After the Romans), French Morocco (Excavation, restoration and UNESCO listing, 2nd appearance, "The first excavations..."), Idris I (Excavation, restoration and UNESCO listing), basilica (Public buildings), Baal (Public buildings), triumphal arch (Triumphal arch), Julia Domna (translation). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably some underlinking, too. Punic needs linked to something at first appearance, at least. Although, frankly, "Punic god" might link to Religion in Carthage (the redirect target of Punic religion), leaving the second appearance of the word to link to Punics. Sidi Moussa, Morocco has an article; I'm not certain if the other modern hamlets deserve redlinks (if so, Sidi Said will have to be disambiguated in some manner). Tocolosida probably deserves a redlink. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I might consider only including the arch translation in the article body, and providing a footnote with the Latin text; for most readers, that's a big block of Latin to encounter in text. Also, is there a source you're citing for that text, and especially for the translation (if you didn't do it yourself, in which case, that's fine). Stylistically, I'm not sure the blockquotes should be bolded like that. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The usual style does seem to be to include the original text (in bold) and the translation in the article body. See e.g. Pyramid of Cestius, Piraeus Lion and Hällestad Runestones, to give a few random examples. I've not found examples of the original text being relegated to a footnote. The Latin text is just a transcription of the inscription and is additionally recorded in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. I'm not aware of there being an "official" English translation; the one in this article was a group effort by members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, aided by the fact that most of the inscription is a set of stock titles and formulae which are well-known from other inscriptions. Large parts of it are virtually identical to an inscription dedicated to the same emperor in 216, a year before the arch inscription, in Bremenium in Northumberland (for which I do have a published English translation). Prioryman (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have done it this way if I was writing the article, I don't think. But, hey, clearly, other articles have formatted similar things in this way and met with consensus approval. So, I've got no actionable objection here! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of bold, the Houses and palaces section starts bolding structure names, which the article didn't do previously. That's probably not MOS-compliant, but more importantly, it makes that section look as though it were written separately. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco had a similar point above. I've taken out the bolding. Prioryman (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I can't find anything that I'd consider a fatal barrier to promotion at this point, and all my significant concerns have been long since addressed. I'm sorry that I didn't get back to this sooner to make note of that, in fact. But, in the proud tradition of finding silly little things at FAC:
From Notable buildings: "58 oil-pressing complexes have so far been discovered in Volubilis." From WP:MOSNUM: "Numbers that begin a sentence are spelled out, since using figures risks the period being read as a decimal point or abbreviation mark; it is often better to recast the sentence than to simply change format, which may produce other problems..." Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the late 8th century the Idrisid dynasty, traditionally seen as the founders of Morocco, was founded there. - this reads a little clumsy with the switch between singular "dynasty" and plural "founders". Perhaps "traditionally seen as the dynasty that founded Morocco" or something similar?Simon Burchell (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded this. Prioryman (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Foundation and Roman occupation
since Neolithic times - a rough year span for the Neolithic in the region would be helpful.Simon Burchell (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Cohors IV Gallorum the same as Cohors IV Gallorum equitata - if so it should link there; if not it should link somewhere else, even if it's only a redlink.Simon Burchell (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be, so I've linked it as you suggested. Prioryman (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After the Romans
Volubilis remained the capital of the region but by the 8th century, Islam had taken hold - I'm not the best for perfect grammar but the comma here seems odd to me. I think it needs another: "Volubilis remained the capital of the region but, by the 8th century, Islam had taken hold", or dropping altogether.Simon Burchell (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded this. Prioryman (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The role of Walter Harris needs to be clarified, the article doesn't even mention his nationality, and his name should be redlinked to an appropriate target.Simon Burchell (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The history of French colonial archaeological exploration sounds like an interesting subject - is there an existing article that could be linked?Simon Burchell (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know of, I'm afraid. Prioryman (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pity - sounds like a fascinating topic for an article. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Sarah Bird Wright. A writer? An archaeologist? Her profession and nationality should be given, and a redlink added. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an attribution and redlink.Prioryman (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sorting those - more to follow. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is an inconsistency in the use of italics. For example Institut des Hautes Etudes Marocaines is italicised but "Institut National des Sciences de l'Archéologie et du Patrimoine" is not - there may be more instances in the article. You should choose one or the other and stick with it.Simon Burchell (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
just below the walls of the Roman town to the west. - to the west of what?Simon Burchell (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which ENGVAR is this article using? There seems to be a mixture of British (e.g. centre) and American (e.g. sidewalk).Simon Burchell (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
City layout and infrastructure
a 77 metres (250 ft) stretch - needs "adj=on" in the convert template.Simon Burchell (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed abbr=on to adj=on for consistency - otherwise this is the only abbreviated instance. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
intervals of one about every 50 metres - "intervals of about one every 50 metres" reads more naturally to me.Simon Burchell (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
six main gates which were flanked by towers - "six main gates that..."
Non-breaking spaces "nbsp;" are needed between the year and the BC/AD throughout.Simon Burchell (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm linking various terms throughout - you might want to double-check them, on the whole I'm linking to Roman subjects and in one or two cases it might not be correct to do so.Simon Burchell (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've made all of the above changes. The article is supposed to use British English; I've corrected the erroneous inclusion of "sidewalk". Prioryman (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - all looks good. I'll try to find time to continue the review at the weekend. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notable buildings
The majority of the 2nd para, from Olive oil was central to the life of the city... would be better moved into a separate section, perhaps called Commerce, and moved much earlier in the article. I had been wondering about trade routes, commerce etc. long before getting this far - and these details don't sit comfortably under "notable buildings.Simon Burchell (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair point. I've moved this para to the previous section to sit alongside the content on infrastructure, as I think the city's olive mills and shops would count as part of its commercial infrastructure. Prioryman (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are various places throughout the article where cite notes crop up mid-sentence, interrupting reading flow. Ideally these should be moved after punctuation.Simon Burchell (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that wouldn't be consistent with WP:INTEGRITY; keeping the citation close to the fact it supports makes it clearer which facts are being cited to which source. At any rate, this is how I've done it for other FAs and it's not been an issue there. Prioryman (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I would usually combine the cites at the first punctuation, for ease of reading, but I accept your response. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this section, the convert templates are producing abbreviated units. Earlier in the article, full units were spelled out. Try to be consistent and either abbreviate or not throughout.Simon Burchell (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've abbreviated the units of length but left area units spelled out, as the abbreviations for acres and hectares aren't quite as familiar as km and mi, I think. Prioryman (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst you are right that these units may not be as familiar, I'm not really convinced that it is necessary to spell them out when the other units aren't. However, this is a minor nitpick and I'll not force the point. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Latin terms such as "cella" should be in Italics.Simon Burchell (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's usually treated as a loanword in English (like fungus or tibia, I suppose). The convention in all of the works I've consulted has been to not italicise it, so I've followed the same convention. Prioryman (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to have been built on top of or converted from an earlier Punic temple, possibly dedicated to Baal. needs additional punctuation. Perhaps "It appears to have been built on top of, or converted from, an earlier Punic temple; this may have been dedicated to Baal."Simon Burchell (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded it more or less along those lines. Prioryman (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Houses and palaces
This section might be better organised as a bulleted list, with each building as a different item.Simon Burchell (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good idea - I've done that. Prioryman (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It had its own private baths - "its own" is redundant.Simon Burchell (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished reading through the article and await your responses. All in all an interesting article, just needs a little polishing... Simon Burchell (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good; a very interesting article. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets the criteria for FA. It has been peer reviewed and had a GOCE completed. Please note that it uses the Bluebook citation style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times, and has specific typeface formatting requirements. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. GregJackPBoomer! 00:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:1825_Prairie_du_Chien_Line.jpg: what sources were used to create this work?
File:ChiefOshkosh.jpg: notes indicate that a copy was published before 2003. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For 1825_Prairie_du_Chien_Line.jpg, with all due respect, how would I have a clue on what sources CJLippert used to create the image and how is it relevant? The image is properly labeled as CC-BY-SA, which is what is required for FA. I fixed the copyright tag on the ChiefOshkosh.jpg to PD-US-1923 per the notes. GregJackPBoomer! 18:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As he's still active, you could ask. It's relevant because a) if he used a base map to create the image (as many people do), that should be identified, and b) the factual content should be verifiable using reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's an image issue, not an article issue. The image is properly labeled as CC-BY-SA, which is what is required under the FA criteria. I AGF that CJL created and labeled the image appropriately. I'm not going to do research on the issue, but if you have a question on the image, feel free to raise it on the image page. GregJackPBoomer! 20:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, if you're choosing to include the image in the article, it becomes an article issue. We need to be able to verify that the boundaries shown are correctly placed and supported by reliable sources on the subject. Also, if a pre-existing base map was used in creating the image, it needs to be identified so its licensing can be verified. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That not what the criteria states. The criteria states "It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly." The image has both caption and alt text, and an acceptable copyright status. The image, as far as I can tell, follows the image use policy. It is not a "non-free" content, so that doesn't apply. If you have questions of the image creator, feel free to ask him, but I'm not going to do so. The image is properly labeled and licensed, which is all that is required. Regards, GregJackPBoomer! 01:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't tell whether the image follows the image use policy unless you know its basis. The criteria also states that specific attributes are "In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles", which includes WP:V. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your interpretation. Regards, GregJackPBoomer! 02:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from Jim The FAC instructions say Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. The nominator has been asked to clarify the status of an image he/she has chosen to use in this article, which to me is the same as justifying a text source or web page as RS. The nominator could take one or more of the following actions
Contact the (still active) creator of the image to establish the sourcing
Withdraw the image (I've just had to do the same for an image which is probably OK but it can't be verified if the creator actually took the picture)
Replace the image with one of his/her own creation with appropriate base map and data sources
After 12 days there has been no sign that the nominator intends to respond constructively to Nikkimaria, and I think that will deter others from reviewing the article (as it did for me). I'm opposing on the basis that the nominator is unwilling to address concerns as required by the instructions Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the above is BS, but I have removed the image. The image requirements Nikkimaria has imposed are not in the FA requirements. I cited the policy and stated I disagreed with the interpretation. No one else commented on the interpretation, until today. In other words, I responded to her criticism and made efforts to address her objections. Responding positively does not mean that the nominator has to agree with all criticism nor take a single reviewers position as consensus. GregJackPBoomer! 11:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my oppose. I think Nikkimaria is not alone in expecting maps at FAC to be sourced appropriately. I always make mine on the basis that they will be challenged if lacking data sources or base maps. Anyway, I'll look at the article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it surprising that Americans can have different levels of citizenship, but that's not really relevant. OK, first pass Jimfbleak - talk to me?
Native American—link in lead?
10 million acres.—conversion needed
President of the United States surveyed and sold the land—I'm sure this isn't to be taken literally, but neither do I understand what it means
current map breaks heading, looks bad.
complete acquiescence of Wisconsin—active or passive? Did they just overlook the situation or support the tribal actions?
single or double space between full stop and next sentence. Former is better, but you have both
tax liens—What is a lien? I have no idea what this means
US$300,000—not a big deal, but do you really need US in an article about, well, the US?
lobbied for a delay the termination until 1961,—missing word?
non-Indians—Since this doesn't seem to be a quote, shouldn't it be native Americans? To me, a non-Indian is someone who doesn't come from Delhi or Hyderabad.
to transfer to the state general criminal and civil—missing word(s)?
Claiborne also argued that whatever regulatory rights held by the federal government were transferred to the state of Wisconsin—" missing word(s)?
I'm not sure caps in refs are mos, although I can see why you have used them. It's not a helpful style of referencing (I had to search the text to find the Huhti that ref 2 referred to). However, I don't expect you to change this.
I've not checked the refs, and I want to have another read through. May be a couple of days Jimfbleak - talk to me? ~
complete acquiescence of Wisconsin—active or passive? Did they just overlook the situation or support the tribal actions?
The state recognized the hunting and fishing rights of the tribe under the treaty and federal law, so did not interfere. It was also on reservation land, where the state did not have jurisdiction until the passage of Public Law 280, in 1953. GregJackPBoomer! 13:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
single or double space between full stop and next sentence. Former is better, but you have both
I don't understand this comment. GregJackPBoomer! 13:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes you had a double space between the end of one sentence and the next, sometimes single. I've fixed these all to single now, which seemed to be in the majority and is also the preferred style Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
tax liens—What is a lien? I have no idea what this means
non-Indians—Since this doesn't seem to be a quote, shouldn't it be native Americans? To me, a non-Indian is someone who doesn't come from Delhi or Hyderabad.
The phrase "non-Indian" is widely used in federal Indian law (which, BTW, still uses the terms "Indian", "Indian country", etc.). See also Native American name controversy - a majority of Indians prefer the term "American Indian" over "Native American." I personally prefer Indian, but I am not going to get bent out of shape over it. GregJackPBoomer! 16:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
to transfer to the state general criminal and civil—missing word(s)?
I'm not sure caps in refs are mos, although I can see why you have used them. It's not a helpful style of referencing (I had to search the text to find the Huhti that ref 2 referred to). However, I don't expect you to change this.
The style used is Bluebook, which has specific typeface requirements. For example, small caps are used for books, journal titles, and book authors. Italics are used for case names, chapter names, and article titles. Specific abbreviations are used, such as "N.Y. Times" for "The New York Times." Bluebook is pretty much standard for legal work, and is allowed by the MOS. (PS, I get this on a lot of reviews, not many are familiar with the style. If there are any specific questions on cites, I will be happy to answer them). GregJackPBoomer! 15:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've not checked the refs, and I want to have another read through. May be a couple of days
I'll mark these off as I get them done. GregJackPBoomer! 15:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on "different levels of citizenship". Your surprise is not abnormal. Indians were not taxed (U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 3) and not U.S. citizens until 1924. Even then, they are citizens by statute (Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, 43 Stat. 253), not by right. Indians did not have the right to vote in many states until the 1960s, and are still widely discriminated against. GregJackPBoomer! 16:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nearest we have here is equal status and additional support (like a TV station) for the Celtic languages in Wales and the Scottish island (although they were actively suppressed in the past), but they weren't the original inhabitants either... I've got to go and try to get a visa for India today, so further comments will be delayed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck a few and fixed the space. My trip to Birmingham took up most of the day so rest of review still to follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more point The Menominee Indian Tribe lived in the states of Wisconsin and Michigan for at least 10,000 years.[1][Note 1... "Anthropologists have surmised that the Menominee, an Algonquian-speaking tribe, may have been in the Wisconsin territory as far back as 10,000 years ago — How do they know what language was spoken in a pre-literate society? Only the Maya had writing in pre-Columbian America, and even that didn't go anything like so far back (I don't think that any language did). I also find it improbable that any cultural group stayed as an coherent single entity for ten millennia, especially when most of the time was before settled farming in most of the Old World, let alone the Americas. It's obviously likely that the area was inhabited by native Americans at that time, but it seems inherently improbable that a group of hunter gatherers (+seasonal farming?) would stay in the same place, with the same culture and known language for 10 millennia while the rest of the world moved on around them Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you are misreading the quote. The Menominee (which is presently an Algonquian-speaking tribe) may have been.... That's how I interpreted the sentence, not that they were saying that they knew what language family the tribe spoke 10,000 years ago. BTW, Algonquian is comparable to Germanic language family, of which English is a sub-group. There is no "Algonquian" language per se. GregJackPBoomer! 19:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
and ref 1 seems to be just a myth, with no more credibility than the stories of Adam and Eve or Beowulf. I can't see how this can possibly be an RS source for the statement when it quotes no anthropological sources whatsoever. It's pov, unsourced and improbable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about the tribe's website? Or the other two works in Ref 1? Those both mention that anthropologists put the Menominee in Wisconsin and the upper peninsula of Michigan for 10,000 years, or from the end of the last ice age. "The Menominee are arguably the longest continuous residents of Wisconsin. According to the historian David Beck (2002), there is evidence of Menominee presence for at least several thousand years." Norbert Ross, Doug Medin, & Doug Cox, Epistemological Models and Culture Conflict: Menominee and Euro-American Hunters in Wisconsin 35 Ethos 478, 481 (2008); "The Menominee represent Wisconsin’s earliest residents, having occupied the area for more than 10,000 years.", Gary Sandefur, Miguel Ceballos, & Susan Mannon, Land and Population on the Indian Reservation of Wisconsin: Past, Present, and Future, Land Tenure Center, Univ. Wisconsin—Madison, Sept. 2000; John-Brian Paprock & Teresa Peneguy Paprock, Sacred Sites of Wisconsin 77 (2001). I could go on, it is really very well established. Let me know if I should change refs or rephrase, but the material is accurate. GregJackPBoomer! 22:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the text, you state their 10,000 yr existence in the area as a bald, unqualified fact. That's how it's presented in ref 1, but that ref is clearly not RS (might be better as an EL rather than a ref), and all you can say from that is that the tribe believes this, rather than it's provably true. I can't access the other refs, but your note 1 says Anthropologists have surmised, which falls some way short of the certainty implied by your sentence. Similarly The Menominee are arguably. I would suggest that you tweak the wording to make it clear it's a belief and/or possibility. Alternatively, if you stick with your text, give us a sentence or two to explain on what basis we know this as a fact. Sorry to get bogged down on one sentence, but this is FAC, and I need to get this clear in my mind. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to read: "The Menominee Indian Tribe may have lived in the states of Wisconsin and Michigan for the last 10,000 years." GregJackPBoomer! 14:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support we got off to a shaky start, but I'm happy with the text as it stands. I still think that ref 1 may run into trouble if it's taken to be referencing a fact rather than a belief, but I'll leave that to others Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this. I appreciate your effort. GregJackPBoomer! 14:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComment-leaning support. Just a few things:
Tribal termination:
"The state of Wisconsin was concerned that with no industry for the tribe to tax, it would be responsible" it is not clear to me to whom "it" refers
The Sanapaw case: I do not find all of what is attributed to footnote 31 present in the source (which I've reviewed on FastCase, the legal research site the Virginia State Bar uses and I have access through them). Specifically, I do not find evidence of an acquittal. The case is fairly opaque on lower court history … can you provide an additional source on this?
Federal Court of Claims
"the current reservation" Not current any more, I'm gathering. Rephrase, perhaps?
I think you should insert dates for the Court of Claims decision, and the decision to grant certiorari.
Argument
"Charles A. Hobbs" if nothing else can be said about him, at least list his location, which should be after the syllabus.
The date the case was initially argued should be included.
Somewhere along the time, Marshall's recusal should be mentioned and, if possible, explained. I imagine it was because he was solicitor general before Johnson appointed him, and the case had been bouncing around long enough he had a conflict of interest.
Subsequent developments
"It has been used in college courses to explain tribal sovereignty rights, even if the tribe has been terminated—as the Menominee tribe was" I'm with you up to the comma, then the sentence seems to go astray.
"The opinion has been noted as a leading case in holding that under normal trustee rules, the Federal government acted as a trustee" Presumably in safeguarding Indian property (ha!) but the sentence needs a bit more.
Law reviews
"over 200" can this be updated to 2013, since a Lexis/Nexis search is involved?
Restoration
Why is the cited act italicized when previous acts mention have not been?
Well done. Once these are taken care of I will almost certainly support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing:
Tribal termination:
"The state of Wisconsin was concerned that with no industry for the tribe to tax, it would be responsible" it is not clear to me to whom "it" refers
Done. Changed "it" to "the state." GregJackPBoomer! 02:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Sanapaw case: I do not find all of what is attributed to footnote 31 present in the source (which I've reviewed on FastCase, the legal research site the Virginia State Bar uses and I have access through them). Specifically, I do not find evidence of an acquittal. The case is fairly opaque on lower court history … can you provide an additional source on this?
"The court, however, found defendants not guilty because they were enrolled members of the Menominee Indian Tribe and the state had no jurisdiction to enforce its hunting and fishing regulations against them." State v. Sanapaw, 21 Wis. 2d 377, 378-79, 124 N.W.2d 41, 42 (1963) disapproved of by Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 391 U.S. 404, 88 S. Ct. 1705, 20 L. Ed. 2d 697 (1968). From both Westlaw and Lexis, in the syllabus section of the opinion, immediately after the headnotes. The state was given leave to pursue a writ of error following the acquittal. I don't have access to FastCase. GregJackPBoomer! 02:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(not an actionable comment) What interested me is any proceeding happening after the acquittal! Wisconsin must have odd laws.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Federal Court of Claims
"the current reservation" Not current any more, I'm gathering. Rephrase, perhaps?
Somewhere along the time, Marshall's recusal should be mentioned and, if possible, explained. I imagine it was because he was solicitor general before Johnson appointed him, and the case had been bouncing around long enough he had a conflict of interest.
Done. Good point - he recused from 98 of the 171 cases the court heard that year, for the reason you noted. GregJackPBoomer! 03:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subsequent developments
"It has been used in college courses to explain tribal sovereignty rights, even if the tribe has been terminated—as the Menominee tribe was" I'm with you up to the comma, then the sentence seems to go astray.
"The opinion has been noted as a leading case in holding that under normal trustee rules, the Federal government acted as a trustee" Presumably in safeguarding Indian property (ha!) but the sentence needs a bit more.
Removed. I can't remember what I was getting at, and the reference didn't help either. So I figure if I don't know, it probably doesn't belong in the article. GregJackPBoomer! 03:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Law reviews
"over 200" can this be updated to 2013, since a Lexis/Nexis search is involved?
Why is the cited act italicized when previous acts mention have not been?
It apparently was done during the copy edit, and I didn't catch it, probably because everything else he fixed was great work. Fixed. GregJackPBoomer! 03:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing this - I really appreciate it! GregJackPBoomer! 03:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. I had been eying it as a Supreme Court case that I should probably do because of Bakke but between a busy travel schedule the past month and spending a lot of time writing an article, it sort of slipped through the cracks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"During this period, the Menominee enjoyed complete freedom to regulate hunting and fishing on the reservation, with the complete acquiescence of Wisconsin". Can this be copyedited to avoid the repetition of "complete"?
"...for two reasons. The tribe was opposed to termination for a number of reasons" - repetitive, and judging by the subsequent list, is it not two, but "a number of" (which most readers i think would think meant more than two).
I had trouble following the paragraph that begins "The Court of Claims had to determine whether the Menominee Termination Act had taken away that right." I think this is at least in part because of the different terms used to refer to the same legal questions, ie "whether the Menominee Termination Act had taken away that right", then "denied the claim" then "had not been abrogated". Then I was a little confused by this: "two witnesses who stated that the law would not affect hunting and fishing rights acquired by treaty, but would abrogate any such rights acquired by statute" What is meant by "the law" - do you mean "the Act"? Finally, have i correctly understood this court decision: the court denied compensation because, it argued, hunting and fishing rights had not been taken away? In other words, the decision amounted to a contradition (but not an over-ruling) of the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision? If so, maybe need to spell that out to more explcitly set the scene for the case going to a higher court.
"...as he had been the Solicitor General the previous year and had participated in the government's preparation of the case". I'm guessing that an American might know that there is only one Solicitor General, and that it is a federal office (yes?), but since the rest of the para is about what the Wisconsin government was asked to do, this particular sentence should specify which government's preparation of the case (I'm assuming federal). Otherwise, ignorant people like me who surmise that each state has a Solicitor General could then conclude it is a reference to the preparation of the Wisconsin state's brief.
"reargument". Wikilink? It appears to have some particular procedural meaning.
Is there a suitable wikilink available for "reserved tribal rights"?
"The Act signaled the end of the termination era". Minor tweak and consistency question. An earlier sentence in this para refers to "the termination act" (all lower case). I suggest this later sentence should read "The Restoration Act", since both acts are mentioned in the para, but can you also look at the use of capitalisation of the word "act"?
"During this period, the Menominee enjoyed complete freedom to regulate hunting and fishing on the reservation, with the complete acquiescence of Wisconsin". Can this be copyedited to avoid the repetition of "complete"?
"...for two reasons. The tribe was opposed to termination for a number of reasons" - repetitive, and judging by the subsequent list, is it not two, but "a number of" (which most readers i think would think meant more than two).
Done., removed "for two reasons." GregJackPBoomer! 15:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had trouble following the paragraph that begins "The Court of Claims had to determine whether the Menominee Termination Act had taken away that right." I think this is at least in part because of the different terms used to refer to the same legal questions, ie "whether the Menominee Termination Act had taken away that right", then "denied the claim" then "had not been abrogated". Then I was a little confused by this: "two witnesses who stated that the law would not affect hunting and fishing rights acquired by treaty, but would abrogate any such rights acquired by statute" What is meant by "the law" - do you mean "the Act"? Finally, have i correctly understood this court decision: the court denied compensation because, it argued, hunting and fishing rights had not been taken away? In other words, the decision amounted to a contradition (but not an over-ruling) of the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision? If so, maybe need to spell that out to more explcitly set the scene for the case going to a higher court.
"...as he had been the Solicitor General the previous year and had participated in the government's preparation of the case". I'm guessing that an American might know that there is only one Solicitor General, and that it is a federal office (yes?), but since the rest of the para is about what the Wisconsin government was asked to do, this particular sentence should specify which government's preparation of the case (I'm assuming federal). Otherwise, ignorant people like me who surmise that each state has a Solicitor General could then conclude it is a reference to the preparation of the Wisconsin state's brief.
Is there a suitable wikilink available for "reserved tribal rights"?
I'm not aware of any link that would be appropriate. There are 91 instances of "tribal rights" on WP, none of which are an article about the concept. GregJackPBoomer! 19:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The Act signaled the end of the termination era". Minor tweak and consistency question. An earlier sentence in this para refers to "the termination act" (all lower case). I suggest this later sentence should read "The Restoration Act", since both acts are mentioned in the para, but can you also look at the use of capitalisation of the word "act"?
I'll get to these as soon as I can. GregJackPBoomer! 15:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] Further comment and source check:
I began by thinking that the article was a bit light on subsequent developments / significance / analysis, and thought i would try to add some in regards to Australia. I have in front of me Dorsett and Godden's A Guide to Overseas Precedents of Relevance to Native Title, which is cited in the article in support of the sentence "The case has been discussed internationally, for example in Australia regarding the relevance of indigenous or aboriginal title". However, the citation in the WP article is wrong (there is no reference to the matter on page 40 of the book) and furthermore the book makes no direct reference to this case. The only time the Menominee Tribe case is mentioned is where it apepars within quotes of other United States cases. That is, Dorsett and Godden make no reference to the case. I think this sentence should be deleted, but it does raise a small question mark for me about other sources, suggesting a source check is required. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how that page error got in there, but I'm looking at the pages where the case is mentioned. On p. 64 (hunting and fishing rights as pre-existing rights), Dorsett & Godden directly reference the case in the section on hunting and fishing rights, and it is not within a quote on another case. On p. 177 (hunting and fishing rights need not be explicitly mentioned in treaty), and p. 178 (treaty abrogation should be explicit), it is contained within a quote of another case (United States v. Dion). I've corrected the reference. GregJackPBoomer! 03:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding that. Oddly the case is not listed in the book's index (others are), and I spent a while searching, but didn't read every page - sorry i missed p.64. OK. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All my concerns addressed. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because Constance Stokes is a victim of double neglect: the favouring of Sydney artists over Melbourne ones in Twentieth century Australian art criticism, in addition to the pervasive neglect of female artists as against male. Ironically, her critical reception in her own lifetime was excellent, being selected for exhibition alongside others who, in contrast to Stokes, are today household names in Australian art, like Arthur Boyd. Her contemporary neglect is reflected in limited sources, but hopefully what is here is sufficiently comprehensive. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support on comprehensiveness and prose - I reviewed this for GA nomination and it looks better now. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Images
Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Fixed.
File:Girl_in_Red_Tights_(c.1948).jpg: page? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found the article interesting, and it's certainly the sort of thing that I'd enjoy encountering as a featured article. Is the article well-written? On balance, probably yes. Does it show us at our best? Yes: it appears to be informed and comprehensive. However, I do think we need to be careful not to use featured article status, or "candidate for featured article" status, just to correct a perceived "neglect", either social or critical. This isn't our job. The eventual choice of featured articles should certainly reflect a good diversity of topics, ideally without excessive bias (whether gender, regional, or whatever), but here we're not selecting which articles actually will be featured; we're simply providing candidates from which a choice can be made. We're not in the business of editorialising here, but simply identifying articles that show Wikipedia at its best. RomanSpa (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry i'm not sure what your point is regarding the article? I couldn't link your remarks to an issue in the text. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, thanks for being so responsive to my comments, above. — Cirt (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WWB Too
Hello, I've also got an article at FAC presently, so in the interests of contributing to the process, I've put together my own review of the draft. I have a number of suggestions, so I'll use bullet points to make them easier to read:
Introduction
This seems like a very prominent location to use a quotation, perhaps too early. Who said it? I would find it more appropriate to summarize the basic facts of her career and save specific praise or comments about her for later in the article.
The quote is attributed in the body text, but i have now revised the lead to eliminate it.
The second paragraph contains some information which seems too detailed for a top-level overview of the article. I would advise keeping the introduction to the very general information, i.e. the years she was active, the style and medium of her work, the galleries where her work is displayed and perhaps her inclusion in Anne Summers' 2009 book. Critics' views seem less salient here.
We may have to agree to disagree and see if other reviewers have a view. I think critical reception is absolutely central to an artist biography, including determining to a significant degree their notability and subsequent understanding of their work. (I was also wryly amused, as the commonest complaint with my GAs and FAs is that the lede is too short :-)) hamiltonstone (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Life and training—The source that supports the following sentence does not confirm that George Bell influenced her career, though I see that the Fred Williams book (currently #12) does mention this. I would advise adding this reference to this sentence as well, so this information is properly supported:
The competition was judged by artist George Bell, who would have a continuing influence over her artistic career.[5]
The relevance to Stokes is unclear in first part of the second paragraph of the Art section. This information seems to focus on Bell as well as Australian art movements in general. The motives for Bell forming the group are important details for his article, but in relation to Stokes what is really important is that she became a member of the group. I would suggest condensing this down to something like the following:
In 194X, Stokes became a member of the Melbourne Contemporary Artists exhibition group, which was founded by a mentor of Stokes', the artist George Bell, to... [Promote a certain art style? How best to summarize the purpose of the group succinctly?]
I have been pondering this for a couple of weeks. My reluctance to change it arises from three things. First, i tend to prefer more context in my article than less; second, a more concise version could lose sight of why there was a modernist group with whom Stokes chose to associate; third, based on my reading of sources, it was very difficult to create a "succinct" statement of the purpose of the group and this text was the best I could come up with. The sources tended to deal with it in a complicated and evasive kind of way. Believe it or not, this was the short version. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the fourth paragraph the statement is made that Girl Drying Her Hair and Woman Drying Her Hair are probably the same work. Is this supported by the Summers 2009 source or is this an assumption? Also, the tone of final sentence of this paragraph reads like magazine profile, not an encyclopedia entry, and should be removed per WP:NOTNEWS.
OK, I think i have finally sorted out the correct way to explain the dual names of the one painting. As to that last sentence, I remain happy with its narrative purpose, which is to engage the reader in the story of that painting. Unless other reviewers object, my preference is to leave it. I don't think anything at WP:NOTNEWS indicates this would be stylistically inconsistent with WP, and my emphasis would be on the FA criteria that "prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard".hamiltonstone (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first three sentences of the fifth paragraph appear to be unsupported. Which source confirms this information? Also, the details about where the artists came from is probably unnecessary. I'd stick to just mentioning that Stokes' work was selected for inclusion in this exhibition.
When i bring articles to FAC, i sometimes have reviewers complain about the density of my footnotes. This was probably an overreaction to that concern. All the facts are based on two sources cited in sentences four and five, but i have put a reference to the two at the end of sentence 3, and hopefully that should improve it. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest subsections in the Art section if you can think of a way to logically break this section down. I think this would help with the readability of the information. The seven long paragraphs are a little overwhelming to the reader.
Yes i agree it would be preferable, but i am yet to come up with any ideas other than a 'later career' heading, which would make the structure unbalanced as it refers only to the last of seven paras. I'll keep thinking though...hamiltonstone (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have split it into two, around the 1953 travelling exhibition. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
National Library of Australia as publisher—I see that you've listed the National Library of Australia as the publisher in the {{cite news}} template for 9 of your sources, though isn't this really the archive location, not the publisher? Obviously I'm new to this article, so let me know if this was something that was discussed and decided upon at GA.
The NLA has an automatic citation format generator for wikipedia use, and these are the results of this. I think probably the reason is that the National Library is effectively (and legally) re-publishing the material, and as such is indeed a publisher. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography—I'm a little confused as to why the following source is included in the Bibliography subsection of your References section:
Summers, Anne (17 November 2009). "An Artist Lost: Rediscovering Constance Stokes". Speech delivered at National Gallery of Australia. Archived from the original on 7 August 2010. Retrieved 28 September 2012.
The other sources listed in the Bibliography section are books, whereas this source is a speech. I understand you've used three separate pages from that source, but is it common practice to put reference items that are not books in the Bibliography section?
My experience is that it is standard practice to place in the bibliography any work for which a Harvard citation is used and for which different page numbers are cited, regardless of the work's form, including papers, book chapters and journal artices.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV language—In general I'm a little concerned about some of the phrases used in this article that don't appear to be clearly supported and are likely to be interpreted as statements of opinion. Can these comments be attributed to specific sources? If not, I feel that they should be removed. For example:
Stokes' artistry endured in a way that of some of her modernist colleagues did not.
This is an introductory statement to the remainder of the paragraph, which shows this.hamiltonstone (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
and
In contrast to many of her modernist colleagues, her works continued to be well-regarded by critics for many years after the group's formation.
This is a summary in the lede of what i hope is demonstrated in the cited sources in the body text. I'm not sure I'm seeing the problem with a lede summary like this? Did you feel that the body text did not contain cited information that critics continued to regard her work well in the years after the group's formation, but did not feel the same about other members? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
and
Despite these prominent painters being selected for inclusion, when the exhibition appeared in London, Stokes' painting Girl in Red Tights drew critical attention and acclaim.
This is supported by the citation at the end of the following sentence. As elsewhere, I was avoiding over-citation by not referring to the same item and page number twice in consecutive sentences. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is all I have time for now. I can probably take another look after you've had a chance to respond to these issues. I hope these comments are helpful, let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fabulous review. There are a couple of suggestions I probably don't agree with, but will consider for a while - it may take a couple of days to work through some things. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see you've implemented or explained most things. I could certainly change my mind on some of the disagreements as well, so happy to discuss further if you like. Ping me on my user Talk when you'd like me to look again. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hamiltonstone, I see that you've made a few more changes based on my suggestions and I'm OK agreeing to disagree on the other issues. I will Support this article's promotion to FA status. Good work. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – a well-written and well-sourced article, it is a pleasure to read. I've just got a few comments:
"University of Melbourne" and "National Library of Victoria" are linked twice.
Since the lead does not mention that Stokes was married, perhaps you could tweak the very first sentence so that it reads "Constance Stokes (née Parkin, 1906–1991)".
The lede does mention the death of her husband, but i've no objection to "nee". hamiltonstone (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Despite the Collins Street apartment becoming a full-time studio for Stokes" → "Although the Collins Street apartment had become a full-time studio for Stokes" – removes noun + –ing construction.
When was the inaugural exhibition of the Contemporary Art Society? If it took place after 1946, perhaps you could move the sentence to the very end of the paragraph to combine the two mentions of the Gallery ie "In 1946, Stokes presented the work to the National Gallery of Victoria, where it would later be hung in the inaugural exhibition of the Contemporary Art Society."
Support: I can find very little wrong with this. I cannot really comment on comprehensiveness (my only knowledge of Australian art comes from Hamiltonstone's other work!), but the prose is top-quality and there is little obviously missing. Just a few minor points, which do not affect my support for this excellent article. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The description of her seems shoe-horned into the "life and training" section. Do we really need to include it? And if so, is this the best place for it? It just seems to have been stuck there.
Sigh, it is indeed shoehorned. The problem relates to your point below. In most biographies, some description of the person is common (see, for example, Fred Williams' biography of George Bell, one of the citations for this article). And I do not have a photograph of Stokes, so I felt I should tell the reader something about her appearance or temperament, but there is little available other than what I included. And so it does indeed read in an isolated way. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"a strong secondary market for her works": Not too sure what this means.
Reworded, but also found a wikilink. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by Summers' comments, Bell is not a figure well-regarded by modern critics. Given the excellent depth and context given earlier in the article, could this be explained somewhere? It would give a bit of backing to her comment.
Have rewritten to give an account of Bell's issues. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other images of her or her paintings which could be included? Or even a fair-use picture of her? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Argh. No free use images at all. Fair use - there are some copyrighted images online, but none of her major works. The one I prepared was the only one i thought would survive fair use scrutiny because this particular picture is much-discussed. Not sure what your experience is with non-free use, but mine is that it is a very high bar, so direct referencing of the content of the image has to be very clear. I haven't found another image i would be confident of putting forward.
Thank you for the useful points.hamiltonstone (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Source for place of death?
McCulloch - edited body text so that is now specified.
FN5 and similar: those disambiguators aren't part of the original titles of the works. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm loath to mess with a referencing format determined by Australia's primary bibliographic institution and designed specifically for Wikipedia. I can't imagine doing anything that would be better than what the NLA's professionals came up with.
Support Comments -- I decided to recuse myself from delegate/coord duties on this one...
I think you tell her story well but some of the wording jarred a bit for me, so I copyedited and you can let me know if I misunderstood anything; outstanding points:
Although she painted few works in the 1930s, her paintings and drawings were exhibited from the 1940s onwards -- the first clause seems a bit of a non-sequitur to one unacquainted with her work; do I care that she painted little in the '30s if I don't know when she started painting? Perhaps if you could add something to that effect immediately before, it would work better...
Tweaked to indicate that her main studies concluded 1929, hopefully making the context clearer. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The family settled in Collins Street, Melbourne, and Stokes had three children between 1937 and 1942 -- I notice there's a hidden comment asking where she had her children and it does pique my curiosity as well; are we to assume they were born while she was living in Collins St?
Yes I saw the hidden comment too. I deliberately haven't clarified it, because the sources don't. Specifically, i do not have a date for the move between Collins Street and their later house in Kew. Though I suspect that it may post-date the children, it is possibly not the case. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stokes' artistry endured in a way that of some of her modernist colleagues did not -- not quite grammatically correct, I fear; what we mean is that her modernist colleagues' artistry didn't endure, so technically I think you should have an apostrophe after "colleagues" (if it looks too odd then you may want to recast the sentence).
Indeed. Recasting. I think the non-possessive plural is now OK, because it refers to the "that" (as originally cast, it would have needed to read "that that" to be correct, which would have looked and sounded poor). Tell me if you still think it is wrong. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Content-wise the detail looks adequate, referencing seems good, and I'll rely on Nikki for the image and source checks.
Structurally I suppose my only niggle is that the heading Life and training makes it sound like you're giving us a full account of her private life in that section, whereas it's primarily her early life, while bits from her later life (e.g. death of her husband and herself) are interspersed in the Art section. I wonder if we shouldn't call the first section Early life and training and the second Artistic career to better reflect the content as it is? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think my comments have been satisfactorily addressed, happy to support. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian your review and tweaks are much appreciated. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Doing... --Another Believer (Talk) 21:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
]: This is an source is an old general book from 1894 (the first sections are on Wikisourse, but not the latter sections on health). See preface, which says that "Most of the matter is original, and the rest has been carefully selected and tried by herself, and adapted to the requirements of Australian Homes." This does not sound like RS for the Wiki to me. The author also wrote cookery books. She is called Mrs. Lance Rawson in the preface, and I have not been able to find anything about her qualifications.
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_02.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_refuelling_a_US_Navy_F-A-18_Hornet_(VFA-131).jpg){kind=link}
_Airbus_KC-30A_(A330-203MRTT)_on_display_at_the_2013_Avalon_Airshow.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Centennial_half_dollar_obverse.jpg){kind=link}
_Centennial_half_dollar_reverse.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
