This article is about Bach's cantata O heilges Geist- und Wasserbad, BWV 165, written for Trinity Sunday of 1715, 300 years ago which attracted me. I thank RHM22 for an inspiring GA review. I recently added a table of the cantatas written that year, details about the situation in Weimar which is not covered in Bach nor the other Weimar cantata, BWV 172, and more about the music. I confess that I don't feel that the article is "ready", - I spent more time on women's history month and articles for the Holy Week than I had anticipated. Looking at a possible TFA day on Trinity Sunday this year, 31 May, I hope that we can manage the needed polishing together. "Hope" begins the first header on my talk ;) Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
which mentions as a summary scripture, baptism and the Eucharist.: does this mean scripture, baptism and the Eucharist are mentioned as a summary? Or does "summary scripture" have some special meaning?
It mentions the three in the first line, and is thus a summary of the topic of the cantata. How would you word that? --GA
No, the images baroque lyric uses, such as the serpent. --GA
Will expand on the poets language and then probably say "Baroque imagery" in the lead, unless you have a better idea
the Weimar court capelle: is there a good link for "capelle"?
Our article is court chapel, this I think is in quote, will check. --GA
"a newly defined rank order": quotes require attribution—but is there some reason this should be quoted?
Yes, to not paraphrase the source too closely --GA
Sorry, by attribution I mean the text has to say who said it—a citation doesn't tell you whose quote it was, because the source may be quoting someone else. Curly Turkey¡gobble!09:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
sometimes you provide the English term with a German gloss in parentheses, and sometimes the other way around. Any reason?
Yes, when the German is understandable in the prose but some people may need a translation I use it first, when it is only a help to be recognizable as the same thing, I like it second, + I am not the most consistent of people. --GA
has been described as "congenial and intimate": needs attribution
Done. --GA
led the performances as the first violinists: should "violinists" not be singular?
Yes, typo, done --GA
Sein Wort, sein Tauf, sein Nachtmahl dient wider allem Unfall, der Heilge Geist im Glauben lehr uns darauf vertrauen.: a translation would be nice
It is in the source, and how about copyright? --GA
Do you mean having the translation looks good, or the translation looks good? German is free in word order, "der Heilge Geist im Glauben lehr uns darauf vertrauen" means "der Heilge Geist lehre uns im Glauben darauf [zu] vertrauen." which translates to "the Holy Spirit may teach us to trust in this in faith", which is not exactly "the Holy Spirit in faith teaches us to rely upon them" ("may teach", not "teaches" - "in faith" belongs to the speaker, not to the Holy Spirit - "darauf" means "in this" = the whole statement = trust that the three elements mentioned will help in all need", not "rely upon" the three elements. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It may read well, but I tried to explain the three things where it isn't what the German says, - and can't be if meter and word order are to be kept. It's one of the reasons cantata articles normally don't show any text and translation. There are several on the Bach-cantatas site, to different languages. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was just hoping for something that could give the reader a general understanding of the text, which otherwise will be gibberish to most readers. I don't think it's that important. If you're worried, maybe you could put it into an endnote? Curly Turkey¡gobble!22:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm ready to support on prose. I don't have the kind of knowledge to tell if the article is truly comprehensive, etc., so I'll leave that to editors knowledgeable in the subject to decide. Curly Turkey¡gobble!09:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I had quite an enjoyable time reading this article while following the score and a recording (I chose Rilling). I have decided to "comment" rather than "support" or "oppose" because I do not have prior experience assessing articles against the Featured Article Criteria, but I hopefully have some useful things to say:
Lovely feeling to have induced some enjoyable time! --GA
General response: the lead is probably the last section to be finalized. In about 200 cantata articles including two featured articles and several good articles, "2 violins" means 2 parts, not 2 players - there can be more. Vocal parts the same, soprano can be more than one singer. If you look at the performance venue and see the list of seven singers, you may agree that for just one chorale Bach likely didn't get more voices than the four present anyway. This is NOT voting for one voice on a part for all works in all venues, I think. Leipzig is not Weimar, other places around the world are not the Himmelsburg.
The lead states “The music is structured in six movements, alternating arias and recitatives, and scored for a small ensemble of four vocal soloists, two violins, viola, and continuo including cello and bassoon.” The bassoon part is written to double the continuo part: as you later say, it never has an independent role. However, the doubling is only in particular sections and there are minor ornamental differences, so I don’t think it is correct to say that it is ‘’included’’ in the continuo part. It is probably acceptable for the cello which seems to be in concordat with the continuo at all times. I would suggest, subject to my second and third bullet points below, “The music is structured in six movements, alternating arias and recitatives, and scored for a small ensemble of four vocal soloists, two violins, viola, cello, bassoon and continuo.” That would be more consistent with the later sentence in the article: “The cantata in six movements is scored like chamber music for … bassoon (Fg), cello (Vc) and basso continuo (Bc).” Here, in this later sentence, the continuo, bassoon and cello parts are considered separate, which I think is more correct.
The second quibble that I have with that sentence in the lead is that it takes the side of the one-voice-per-part movement with the suggestion that the four vocal soloists are the only vocalists within the “small ensemble”. OVPP is highly debatable. A later sentence in the article – “The cantata in six movements is scored like chamber music for four vocal soloists (soprano, alto, tenor and bass), a four-part choir (SATB)” – is better because it is agnostic as to how many voices there would be to each part in the concluding chorale.
done in the lead, feel free to add precision to the scoring --GA
The third quibble with that sentence, and also with the later sentence, is whether the work scored for "two violins" and "viola", as the article says, or "two violin parts and violas" (and "cellos"). Even Jeggy adopts a large string section at times: see http://www.classical-music.com/feature/meet-artists/sir-john-eliot-gardiner. It might be better to name the parts for which the work is scored and say nothing about how many instruments there are to each part. (Now you see why I sided with Rilling, who I suspect is armed with string forces around the 6-6-4-3 mark.)
called "vocal parts" now in the lead --GA
Movement 1: The article says that the B theme is the reverse of the A theme. Inverse is the accurate term here, as reflected in the quoted passage from Alfred Dürr. I don’t know how one “reverses” music: by playing it backwards? What Bach is doing in the B theme is inverting the A theme such that ascents become descents and vice versa. I would also mention that the inversion is not complete: as I read the score, only the first two measures of the A theme are inverted before the B theme takes a rather different course.
go ahead, add this and the following, or I will later --GA
Movement 1: There seems to be to be another symmetrical aspect to the movement: both the opening and closing ritornelli are fugues.
Movement 3: might “four phrases” be better than “four sections”?
not sure, because "phrasing" has also a different meaning, but open --GA
My apologies if there is a clear and obvious answer to this question - What are the criteria upon which the “Selected recordings” are identified?
The recordings were given as simple lists before I even started to look at Bach's cantatas in 2010. They are based on the listing on bach-cantatas. BWV 22 has a table instead.
Now that I see that other more experienced contributors have supported this article, I am confident enough to support despite my earlier hesitant comment. I would, however, condition that support on making the instrumentation and reverse-inverse changes that I mention above. As for the instrumentation, as I interpret it, the term "two violins" can only mean one thing: two people, each playing a violin. Even if that interpretation were open to dispute, ambiguity could be eliminated with the following changes:
(Please discuss the "two violins" question with project classical music, - it would change many articles where scoring is given if we had to add "parts" every time.) ---GA
Change the first sentence of the third paragraph to "The music is structured in six movements, alternating arias and recitatives, and scored for four vocal parts, strings, bassoon and continuo." The term "strings" is both accurate and simple. Alternatively, if that were deemed too simple, it could say "The music is structured in six movements, alternating arias and recitatives, and scored for four vocal parts, two violin parts, cello, bassoon and continuo."
"strings" taken ---GA
Change the second sentence of "Scoring and structure" in the same or a similar way.
hesitating, see also BWV 172 and BWV 22, on top of around 200 other articles for Bach alone ---GA
Change the third sentence of the first movement's section to "The theme of B involves an inversion of material from A, that of C is derived from measure 2 of the ritornello."
Two out of three is good enough for me, thank you, so I too am happy to support. Thank you for your suggestion about pursuing the "two violins" question with project classical music, but I think I will have to decline. I'm involved in one near-violent Wikipedia argument at the moment. Opening an argument about the appropriate size of an ensemble for Bach's music would be too much! Joshua Rifkin probably needs bodyguards. Syek88 (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The supposed English term "capellmaster" is unknown to me, and more to the point unknown to Grove and the Oxford English Dictionary. It is true that "Kapellmeister" is not in the OED either (though it is in Chambers's), but it is in Grove, and I reckon you'd be much better off sticking with that rather than trying to translate it.
It is used by Christoph Wolff who is quite an authority, and readers will find it there. I am willing to change, though, if more voices prefer that. --GA
Have you used "capellmaster" in earlier articles? Best let sleeping dogs lie, if so. Otherwise my own strong inclination would be to keep the original. But as you say, let's see if any other editors have an opinion. Whom could we ping for an informed view? Perhaps our Messiah colleague. (Parenthetically, did you know that Karajan habitually put his occupation as "Kapellmeister" in official documents?) Tim riley talk13:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wolff is undoubtedly an authority on Bach and all things related thereto, but not perhaps of English which isn't his native tongue. I've never seen the word "capellmaster" anywhere; it's a made-up hybrid of Italian and English, and I would prefer to see the more widely known form in its place. Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking: if we use Kapellmeister, we should also say Hofkapelle, Vize-Kapellmeister, Konzertmeister, right? - All good terms, related to chapel, the original sacred place, and fine with me, but if people confuse them with what they normally think - Karajan and the first violinist of the Berlin Philharmonic - it might be misleading. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, because "Kapellmeister" is an adopted word in English (or at least has a toehold in our dictionaries) whereas the other terms are clearly completely German. Tim riley talk18:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Gymnasium", on the other hand, will confuse many English readers, who will think of physical jerks rather than the educational establishment that the German term represents. If a suitable English term can be found, I'd be inclined to use it.
there is a link, and no English term quite matches that type of school. --GA
"resulted in a program" – is the article in AmEng? Fine if so. If in BrEng, you want "programme"
I am not consistent - see above - having lived in the US but not the UK. More readers may read on a US background, no? --GA
Undeniably, but you will understand that an Englishman is likely to think his English is the real thing, and foreign varieties not quite echt. Still, the arithmetic is clear enough. Tim riley talk13:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"melismas" – I see from the OED that this form of plural is all right, but I think "melismata" is usual. It would be useful to have other editors' views on this point.
For some reason, "melismas" and "commas" don't hurt me, while "requiems" do. --GA
WP:OVERLINK: I'd say hymn doesn't want a blue link. There are duplicate links to the Neue Bach-Ausgabe, serpent and Moses.
Hymn and violin are linked in all cantata articles, sorry. The other three are intentional, because not all readers will read sequentially. --GA
Hmmm. Not wholly persuaded, but will not press the point.
In the beginning all Dürr citations were to 1971 (in German), now one is left because I can't see those pages in English and would not know the page number of the translation. I deleted Leonard and Oron when I fixed the above, but use Oron now for the recordings, placing Leonard as external link. The score should be available for everyone to check, - do you think it would be a good idea to provide the page number for the movements? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest providing ISBN-13 where available
done --GA
What makes Browne a high-quality reliable source? Grob?
see Zedler, Grob has details which can be seen in facsimiles also but not as easily --GA
Koster is a linguist - what makes him a high-quality reliable source in this context?
similar, the site offers contemporary images that help me, so perhaps others also, - and it's in English --GA
For all four: accessibility could be a rationale for inclusion in External links but does not in itself support a judgment of reliability for sourcing purposes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest to have a second reference for those then. Placing them in External links would break the connection of where reading them would be useful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether you use bach-cantatas or bach-cantatas.com.
done now - sorry, I keep forgetting that I am not the only editor, - I knew where "my" references are, and after some thinking, it dawned to me what FN may mean, thank you for noticing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not satisfied as to the reliability of several of the sources being used - having a second reference helps, but you could maintain the "connection of where reading them would be useful" instead by annotating the EL section, if wanted. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I try to please you by moving three of them (Arnold, Koster and Zedler) to external links, although I fail to see why you think that they are less trustworthy than Mincham, for example. I see Grob as a database without POV which I would like to keep for a few quotations taken from the manuscript which can be verified there but less easily so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know, having previously looked at Mincham as a source, that I believe he meets WP:SPS (see for example [3]); I don't know that of the others, which is why I asked for justification. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Instead I moved three to external. I will perhaps think about justification for the next round, concentrating now on expanding and improving linked articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the prose is a bit shaky. My view—which I would express to any FAC nominator—would be that this is not a place for "polishing" an article. Having said that, we are here now, and I think the requisite polishing is achievable. Generally, most of my prose concerns arise from syntax – sentences that are hard to read, or even misleading, because they are arranged in a peculiar internal order:
"and probably another on the Trinity Sunday concluding his first year as Thomaskantor in Leipzig on 4 June 1724." – this would be clearer if the date were moved closer to "Trinity Sunday" (eg "the Trinity Sunday of 4 June 1724, which concluded his first...").
Thank you for your patience. This topic will be expanded. --GA
"Capellmaster Samuel Drese was still in office at Bach's time, and shared it" – By this point I had forgotten what "it" (responsibility for church music) was. I'd suggest replacing the pronoun.
reworded --GA
"Performers of the cantatas were mainly the core group of the Hofkapelle, seven singers, three leaders and five other instrumentalists" – are the singers, leaders and instrumentalists part of the "core group of the Hofkapelle"? If so, a comma after "Hofkapelle" is likely to mislead as it suggests it is part of a cumulative list. A colon might be better. If the list is cumulative, I'd suggest an "as well as" (or similar) before "seven" to clarify.
tried "formed by", - it's not cumulative --GA
"while the organ part was played by Bach's students" – "organ parts", because we are talking about multiple works?
only one work played at a time, though, - if I read organ parts, I would think of one work using more than one organ, no? --GA
"Even in settings like chamber music, a strong continuo section with cello, bassoon and violone in addition to the keyboard instrument was requested" – requested by whom?
by the composer, - active voice tried --GA
"and related to the gospel's verse 14 which compares to the symbol" – I don't understand this. Perhaps just let the quote speak for itself a bit more, without so many introductory words.
shortened --GA
What does "Rec: con Stroment." mean?
I added the translation "(Recitative: with instruments)", but it doubles what is said before, "accompanied by the strings (accompagnato)" --GA
"adagio" marking on the words "hochheiliges Gotteslamm" – an "adagio" marking (or similar)?
done --GA
"and by melodic parts of the instruments" – surely "of" should be "for", otherwise it suggests that two strings of a violin are melodic but the other two aren't.
taken --GA
"reviving it probably there on Trinity Sunday of his first year in office" – the placement of the "probably" is problematic. Is it the location or the date to which the "probably" qualifier applies?
Otherwise, the article is certainly informative, and while I am no Bach expert it appears comprehensive in the sense that it covers everything I would expect it to. Subject to the resolution of Nikkimaria's points, the sourcing also appears to be appropriate. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unusual case, as he is both conductor and soloist. Normally we link them all in a list not expecting readers to read sequentially, but as it is in the same line I removed the link. Very observant, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You know that the bass has (only) two recitatives, and in recitatives the instruments often go with the singer without a conductor (who might be disturbing even) anyway. --GA
Is there a link for Konzertmeister? As it's not an English term it might benefit from a footnote or the name in brackets even if fairly obvious. Does it mean head of the concert or conductor? Kappellmeister too. In brackets like Schlosskirche (court church) might work best for English readers.
There is a link but it describes what a modern Konzertmeister does in a symphony orchestra which has nothing to do with composing, - misleading and therefore not linked in BWV 172. It was "concert master", with German in brackets, before some comments above. Will restore it, now in brackets. --GA
"The position, which gave him "a newly defined rank order", as Christoph Wolff phrased it,[3] was created for him, possibly on his demand.[3]" -a lot of commas here, perhaps reword to "The position was created for him, possibly on his demand, giving him "a newly defined rank order" according to Christoph Wolff.
taken --GA
"In his first cantata of the series, Himmelskönig, sei willkommen, BWV 182, for the double feast of Palm Sunday and Annunciation, he showed his skill in an elaborate work in eight movements, for four vocal parts and at times ten-part instrumental writing.[8] He also presented himself as a violin soloist." -rep of he/his -perhaps change one to Bach.
one dropped --GA
In the table perhaps an asterisk/footnote would work better and look more formal explaining that it is possible but unverified/unknown rather than using question marks?
will think about that, will possible word something on the poets, --GA
"Bach led the first performance of the cantata on 16 June 1715. The performance material for Weimar is lost.[25] Bach performed the work again as Thomaskantor in Leipzig. Extant performance material was prepared by Bach's assistant Johann Christian Köpping.[26] The first possible revival is the Trinity Sunday of Bach's first year in office, 4 June 1724,[27] also the conclusion of Bach's first year and first Leipzig cantata cycle, because he had assumed his office on the first Sunday after Trinity the year before. Bach made presumably minor changes." -the opposite from earlier here, Bach is mentioned six times in one paragraph! Perhaps change a few to "he".
taken, 2 changed --GA
"The cantata was published in the first edition of Bach's complete works by the Bach-Gesellschaft in 1887 in volume 33, edited by Franz Wüllner." -do we have the formal name for this publication?
It's called Bach-Ausgabe, but has no link other than Bach-Gesellschaft. --GA
Delink Neue Bach-Ausgabe in next section per overlink.
it's there for people reading only that para --GA
"John Eliot Gardiner" -I'm sure some of us who don't know much about classical music are ignorant of his identity (even if we shouldn't be), perhaps add "The English composer" before his name like you do with the musicologist further down?
In other articles, we (only) say "the musicologist" if there is no link. I will think about saying something about the Bach Cantata Pilgrimage. --GA
Ditto with Klaus Hofmann and William G. Whittaker.
ditto, - I did it for Whittaker --GA
In movement 4, haven't you already linked Moses and serpent or is this piped to a different article now?
yes, linked before, but again: some readers will not read sequentially, and it is especially here where the image and its relation to the music is discussed --GA
Who is Aryeh Oron?
Sorry, I don't know. The spirit behind the Bach-Cantatas website. Perhaps we should have an article on the Bach-Cantatas website ;) --GA
I was thinking that it is the primary source on so many Bach related articles we ought to have an article on it, or at least a list in the workspace of all of the missing articles on the site. There's so much missing!♦ Dr. Blofeld13:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've started this. I reckon it would be very productive to have every missing article on it red linked on here! At future FACs then there shouldn't be many bio red links.♦ Dr. Blofeld13:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am usually more interested in the background to a piece of music than the intricacies of its scoring, but this article managed to pique my interest in the latter as well. The writers have covered all the topics that I would look for and written it in a manner that keeps my attention. There are not as many references as I might have expected, but I think there are sufficient to verify any text that might be challenged. I dislike having my reading interrupted by having to follow links too often just to understand, but this article manages to explain itself without much need to look at other pages. Well done!
Accessibility:
Although we don't insist on meeting all of WP:ACCESS, I believe that our best work should be as accessible as possible, not only to cater for the visually impaired, but because it serves as a model for other editors to copy. In this respect, the article meets all of my criteria:
Images have good alt text that is not too involved, but makes sense when read by screen reader in conjunction with the caption;
Tables have captions and properly marked up row and column headers;
There is no text too small to read;
Colours - where used - have sufficient contrast with their background to make the text readable, and are judiciously chosen so as not to be a distraction.
I'd actually prefer a slightly less saturated colour for the header background in the bottom navbar, but I accept that others prefer it as it is. Overall, I would recommend this article as one of Wikipedia's best works. --RexxS (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Nikolaus-Selnecker.jpg is an photograph or scan of a 16th century print (made from a copperplate engraving) that belongs to the Theological Seminary in Wittenberg . I've added English translations to the File on Commons. The uploader is commons:User:Torsten Schleese, who identifies as a local history researcher from Wittenberg, so we would have little reason to question his bona fides. As it is a faithful reproduction of a 2-D work of art, the photographer or scanner is unable to generate fresh copyright, as far as WMF is concerned, and that leaves the file as PD-old-100. However I do see that commons:Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs suggests that the image may not be re-usable in some jurisdictions.
Much the same applies to File:Schlosskirche Weimar 1660.jpg which is a reproduction of 17th century oil painting, uploaded by commons:User:Wetwassermann~commonswiki. In general, knowing who made the digitisation doesn't help much other than to help differentiate between a photo and a scan. If the creator is also the uploader, then they have released the images as PD-old-100, so the only question is whether we believe that the uploader had the right to release file under that licence. That concern, of course, is a consideration for every file that finds its way onto Commons. Unfortunately Wetwassermann hasn't been around since 2010, so I don't suppose we can ask him. Does that address your concerns or do you think we ought not to use images that may not necessarily be reusable everywhere? --RexxS (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rex, I am well aware of the copyright status of the images. That doesn't change the fact that we need sources for the digitizations; we need to say where we got them, and where we got the information about them. Otherwise, these are not examples of Wikipedia's "best" work, as they have unclear sourcing, and uncited information regarding the image itself. Without a source, we can't say for sure that this is a work by X, Y, or Z; what we have is a claim, which may or may not be true. Furthermore, on Commons, lacking a source is grounds for speedy deletion (F5). I doubt we want that to happen here. I've fixed the Selnecker image myself (added "scanned by self" (i.e. the uploader), though to be honest the original source scanned would be best), but the Schlosskirche image still needs a source. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, the Luyken etching would be fine, but again it needs a source. Furthermore, it should be JPG and cropped to remove the text information (the last two are easy to do; I'll do it when I get home from work). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I expected you to know, Crisco, but my commentary will also be read by other editors who may wish to form a view on the issue. Featured Articles are by no means perfect - many don't even meet our basic standards for accessibility, but that's another story - and sometimes we have to accept compromises between having images that meet particular standards and degrading the quality of the article by losing useful images. The standards for images on Commons are an issue for Commons, not this Wikipedia, and most of the time it boils down to whether or not we accept that the uploader has the right to release image under the licence used. My position is that unless we have a genuine reason to suspect that the uploader did not have that right, then we have to respect the given licence as governing re-use. It is not a prerequisite to have details of who scanned PD art, because they cannot affect the right of use under a PD-licence. I accept that photographs carry more copyright issues in some jurisdictions, but that should not be a disqualification for a Featured Article candidate, as WP:FACR.3 only requires "acceptable copyright status" - indeed, even the use of non-free images is allowed subject to meeting the image use policy, none of which requires the source to be named.
Additional: Please don't allow the impression that images should be converted from grey-scale gif to jpg format. A gif or 256-colour png can hold just as many shades of grey as can a jpg, but a jpg is a lossy format, while the compression used in gif or png loses no picture information. If there is concern that file size is too great, then by all means create a derivative jpg image, but at thumbnail size File:Bowyer Bible etching by Jan Luyken 8 of 12 Jesus converses with Nicodemus.gif is only 25kB and any reader who has difficulty with that will inevitably have images switched off anyway. --RexxS (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Archived versions of an image should be PNG, yes (GIF is much less common, larger, and less capable, and for new uploads Commons prefers PNG, as per commons:Commons:File types), but until the WMF cleans up their act and enables proper downsampling for PNGs, JPGs should be used in the articles for images with a lot of fine detail such as this. Compare the images in Brian Britten: PNG, JPG. One is blurry and seems to have been shot through a window, while the other is perfectly clear. This keeps the images clearer in the article, and reduces download size.
I firmly disagree with your position on images, as we cannot guarantee that the copyright information is correct without a source. Furthermore, and much more simply, WP:FA? #3 includes a sentence you didn't quote: "Images included follow the image use policy," which requires a source for files; by not including sources, the images are not meeting the image use policy, and thus not in line with the FA criteria. As such, until the images are cleaned up, I must sadly oppose this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either 256-colour png or gif is fine for archived images in greyscale. As these are lossless compressions, they may be freely converted one to the other. However, jpg compression introduces an irreversible loss of picture information and introduces artefacts whenever there is a sharp boundary. Nobody would suggest using jpg as an archive format when a losslessly compressed version is available. I agree that the MediaWiki software makes a poor job of downscaling a png as it inevitably renders a large 16 million-colour version which sometimes has a larger filesize than the original 256-colour png with greater dimensions. The solution if filesize is a consideration is to create a downsized png version of the file with the required resolution yourself and upload that for use in the article. There is no question that a properly resized greyscale png or gif will always have superior image quality to a jpg version at the same resolution.
I must just as firmly disagree with your position on images. In many cases, we can never guarantee that copyright information is correct, because we rely just as much on the accuracy of the uploader who might source it as their own work, as we do in the case of the licence they choose. Images uploaded several years ago, in particular, did not have the same constrictions on their uploading, with the result that many perfectly acceptable images uploaded in the previous decade are lacking the sort of information that we ask uploaders to supply today.
As for image use policy, that is exactly the link I gave when referring to criterion 3, as you can see above. The policy statement concerning sources in its list of requirements is this:
Origin (source): The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from ...
For an image from a book this is ideally page number and full bibliographic information (author, title, ISBN number, page number(s), date of copyright, publisher information, etc.).
That is frequently an unachievable goal for a 16th century manuscript or a 17th century oil painting. You are asking for this article to be held to standards that do nothing to make the article Wikipedia's best work, but merely ensure that articles that make use of PD-old-100 images will almost always fail. That cannot be the intention of Featured Articles. --RexxS (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking for the source of the digitization. That is far from calling for the actual manuscript. Indeed, where have I said that I'm looking for that? In my original review, I said "Source of this digitization?" (emphasis added). You are (again) selectively quoting from the relevant policy, missing the much simpler to meet requirement for images from the internet (of which there are examples in spades). If you'd helped Gerda do what was actually asked (providing sources for the digitizations, not the actual locations of the manuscripts or paintings), this would be done by now. It would have taken 15 minutes, tops. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to start personalising things and I'm going to ask you to stop doing that. If finding the source of a photograph of a 17th century oil painting was a 15 minute job, you can bet I'd have done it by now and I resent your implication that I haven't been doing my best to help. I already carried out a Tin-eye search for File:Schlosskirche Weimar 1660.jpg and it only turns up derivative files, so that's a dead end. There is no point in asking for a source for a digitisation if the uploader didn't supply it and having that sort of information is of no value in resolving your problem :"Without a source, we can't say for sure that this is a work by X, Y, or Z; what we have is a claim, which may or may not be true.". You are perfectly happy to point me to Benjamin Britten, a Featured Article whose lead image is sourced to a dead link on eBay - what value is that? The photograph of his birthplace is sourced to "Own work" - a claim which may or may not be true. The image of Frank Bridge can't be copied to Commons because it "might not be in the public domain outside the United States" and so on. So I'll ask this clearly: "In what way is File:Schlosskirche Weimar 1660.jpg so inferior to the images in Benjamin Britten that it should disqualify this article from FA status?" And don't bother to make the self-referential argument that it has no source information, because I'm going to reply, "So what?". --RexxS (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the upload. I confess that most of the above remains a mystery to me. Are you telling us that if I can't "clean up" the Schlosskirche sourcing information (and I don't even understand what I should/could do), readers would not be able to see an image which they saw in BWV 172 last year, which has been in cantata articles from 2010, which tells them at a glance that the organ was on the third floor with little space around it (something that would be necessary to say then, because it's crucial to understand the performance conditions)? We can't give them a photo instead because the building burnt down. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can. It should take all of two minutes if you have decent information on the image (which you do). Frankly, I'm surprised that this has taken almost 30 hours. Heck, even this could be used (as the copyright claim doesn't apply to PD-ART works). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, I'll do it myself, if only so that this nomination doesn't sink over something that should have been dealt with in 15 to 20 minutes... but this means that you need someone else to review images. Perhaps Nikkimaria would be willing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Crijn_Hendricksz.jpeg: someone has added a note to this saying that the claimed painter is not the real creator - is there any merit to that? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can see two versions of the painting at http://www.artnet.com/artists/cryn-hendricksz-volmaryn/past-auction-results - that site is unequivocal in naming Crijn Hendricksz Volmaryn as the author of the one that we use, while the other version is captioned "Attributed to Cryn Hendricksz Volmaryn". Perhaps our note-writer confused the two? I certainly can't find a reliable source indicating any support for his view. --RexxS (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Christies. [4] It appears that that the 1960's sale date given in the cmt added about the painting to our file is not accurate. As well, determining whether a painting is a fake or not is really difficult even for an expert let alone doing so with non-experts using a file here. In a look at the painting on the Christies website, our version here compares favourably. Hans Van Meegeren's work seems pretty obviously quite different than the originals he either copied or used as inspiration. In all, I think we can use the file of the pic we have until we have definitive proof that it is a copy. We're not in the business of uncovering forgeries or identifying copies after all?(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]
If we don't think the comment is accurate, it should probably be either moved to talk or removed entirely rather than left as part of the image description. I think we could also include a citation for in the article's caption, just to be clear on where the attribution is coming from. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that I understand. Isn't "attributed" correct, even if he IS the one, but expressing that not everybody is sure. - I may have a language problem, therefore, Nikki, please feel free to change yourself to what you think is best. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me understand: we could simply say "by CHV", as the painters article does, if there wasn't this one dubious comment, - but we can hardly say "attributed by almost everybody", no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, but if you are going to say "attributed to", which you can say, you should provide a source for that attribution. Also, the inline EL that has since appeared in the caption shouldn't be there, and the caption still needs editing for grammar. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I beg you to perform that copy-edit for grammar yourself, - I seem simple unable to understand what you mean, don't know attribution by whom, etc. - Giving up: how about dropping the image altogether? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Nikkimaria: (1) Why do we need a source for an attribution here? The image description page provides that information; If we said "by CHV", would you still want a source for that? (2) Why shouldn't a caption contain the standard template used in Wikipedia to point the reader to the relevant Biblical verse {{Bibleref2}}? (3) What do you consider is wrong with the grammar in the caption? I can see nothing amiss. "A caption, also known as a cutline, is text that appears below an image. Most captions draw attention to something in the image that is not obvious, such as its relevance to the text. Captions can consist of a few words of description, or several sentences." --RexxS (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(2) For Bach works, we use {{Sourcetext}}, as John 3:1–15, but I don't think it needs to be repeated in the caption.
(ec) (1) If you're going to say "attributed to", you should include a source for that attribution. (2) It already appears earlier and is not as directly relevant in the caption. (3) I know what a caption is, and you're not seeing a problem with it because I've already fixed it, per Gerda's request above. After ec: Gerda, both alt and caption - I hadn't seen the more extensive issues in the alt until in edit mode, and now I note that the other alts could also use editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Why are you requiring a source for "attributed to XYZ", but not requiring a source for "(painted) by XYZ"? I can see no logic in that. (2) The pointer to the biblical text occurs four sections higher under "Topic and text". The guidance calls for only one link in an article, but makes an exception for image captions: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.". I wouldn't agree that omitting such a later link improves the article in any way, but I accept that others' opinions may differ on that. Nevertheless the biblical passage is utterly relevant to the theme of the painting - it's what links the image to this article. How can you think it's not relevant in the caption, when one of the caption's main purposes is point out the "relevance to the text"? (3) You fixed the grammar in the caption by adding a hyphen between "seventeenth" and "century"? Why tease Gerda like that - if there's a trivial problem, either state it explicitly or fix it yourself immediately. This is meant to be a collaborative review, not some sort of final exam for a nominator to pass. --RexxS (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Because "attributed to" suggests that someone has attributed it to this artist, rather than it being a simple fact that this painting is by this artist - thus, we want some indication of who the "someone" is. The image page does not currently provide that given that it still includes the commentary about how this image is not really by that artist, which needs to be dealt with in some way before this passes. (2) OVERLINK refers to wikilinks, not external links - including external links inline is deliberately rarely done, and the link between the image and the text is already accomplished by the adjacent text and by the previous caption, without the EL. (3) No one is trying to "tease Gerda", but instead to give her autonomy in how to approach the problem - as indeed someone has since used, in completely rephrasing the caption. Gerda: I apologize if my comment came across as "teasing" - are you satisfied with the caption and with my changes to the alt texts? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This looks very interesting – the sort of history we never learn about in English schools. For the moment I have a few minor issues arising in the lead, but I hope I can find time for a fuller reading later:
Comma needed after "Holy Roman Emperor" near end of second paragraph
Third para: I'm not sure about "ensured" – even draconian measures can be resisited and thwarted. I'd prefer a more neutral word such as "sought" or "encouraged"
Final para: De-link Hungary – we don't normally wikilink countries. Also, it's not clear why Bishop Gerard is included in the report of Stephen's canonization.
Beyond the lead, there are a couple of uncited statements in the article: see third paragraph of "Early years" section, and first paragraph of "Artistic representation".
Brianboulton, thank you for your review and comments. I started to modify the article taking into account your comments. Please let me know if any further action is needed. I am not an expert in the field of arts and I sought assistance from WikiProject Hungary. If no reference were added within a couple of days, I will delete the non-referenced texts. Borsoka (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, I just want to say thank you for focusing on this period of time and region. It's wonderful to see the history being filled in here on WP :)
Second, I'm normally uncomfortable with the use of primary sources in articles, but I think you did a very careful job of placement.
There are citation needed tags in the artistic representation section.
citations should be in order at the end of a sentence; for example in the 2nd sentence in the Active foreign policy section, ref 106 comes before 59
I think there are too many images in the article. Starting with the active foreign policy section, it's just a continuous stream of pretty down the right side, and it is a little much.
Karanacs, thank you for your comments and support. I put the citations in order and deleted some images. I wait some more days before deleting the unreferenced sentences from the last section. Borsoka (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, I must apologise for my long absence from this review, but until recently have not found much time to engage with the article. I have started a closer reading, now, and have noted a number of points which I think require attention or at least considerstion. None of them are major issues.
There's a tendency towards multiple references for quite simple statements where one good ref would do, e.g. "However, Saint Adalbert's nearly contemporaneous Legend, written by Bruno of Querfurt, does not mention this event".[16][17][18] - why is that worth three citations? Or "Koppány, who held the title Duke of Somogy, had for many years administered the regions of Transdanubia south of Lake Balaton."[26][29][33] There are plenty more of these.
"...opponents of Christianity represented by Stephen and his predominantly German retinue." It needs to be "of the Christianity
The full sentence read: "Stephen, who "was for the first time girded with his sword", according to the Illuminated Chronicle placed the brothers Hont and Pázmány at the head of his own guard and nominated Vecelin to lead the royal army." The punctuation was off and the construction awkward. I have revised it to: "Stephen, who according to the Illuminated Chronicle "was for the first time girded with his sword",[38] placed the brothers Hont and Pázmány at the head of his own guard and nominated Vecelin to lead the royal army."
"He also prescribed that Koppány's former subjects were to pay tithes to this monastery..." What monastery?
"If the latter report is valid, the dioceses of Veszprém and Győr are the most probable candidates". Conjectural statements such as this must be specifically ascribed.
I had forgotten that Boleslav was king of Poland. A reminder in the text would be useful. And, unless there are other Boleslavs in the story, I don't think you have to add "the Brave" each time he is mentioned.
"a town identified with Ohrid by Györffy" only makes sense after several readings and use of the link. Better phrasing might be: "...Cesaries", which Györffy identifies as the present-day town of Ohrid".
"Stephen's legends also wrote of 60 wealthy Pechenegs..." Legends don't write. They may be written. Perhaps "refer to " or "include stories of", or similar.
This section is headed "Active foreign policy", but includes topics unrelated to foreign policy, e.g. minting of coins, settling of pilgrims etc. You should either relocate these bits, or find a more inclusive section title.
Thank you. I would prefer the present title without changing the text. I think that the main feature of that period is the active foreign policy. For instance, if somebody works for the XZW Group between 1990 and 2015, we can say that those are his "Working for the XZW Group" even if he had an appendicitis, fathered three sons and four daughters and travelled to Antarctica, if we think that his working for that company was the most featuring detail of his life during those days. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"...is also dated by many historians to the very end of the 1020s..." I'd say the words "also" and "very" are reundant here.
The statement introducing the chart reads: "The following family tree presents Stephen's ancestors and his relatives who are mentioned in the article". This is not quite the case. For example, Vazul, described as Stephen's cousin, is nowhere to be seen in the tree.
Andrew I, who died before December 1060 according to the link, refers to "King St. Stephen", yet Stephen was not canonized until 1083 – which is a little odd.
"Legend tells that Stephen's coffin could not be opened until King Ladislaus held his dethroned cousin Solomon in captivity at Visegrád." This introduces new material which will baffle readers unless you add a word or two of explanation.
"An annual procession has celebrated the relic since 1938, except between 1950 and 1987, when its celebration was forbidden by the communist government". This doesn't quite read right, since the excluded years represent half of the total period. Suggest rewrite: "An annual procession celebrating the relic was instituted in 1938, and continued until 1950, when its celebration was forbidden by the communist government. It was resumed in 1988".
Personal issue: I found the frequent insertions of chunks of quoted material rather distracting. I wasn't sure whether these formed a necessary part of the narrative, or if they were there to illustrate or emphasise points already made. Either way, there were rather a lot of them – are you sure they are all necessary?
Brianboulton, first of all, I must apologize for failing to answer for days, but I did not notice that you had meanwhile completed your review. I highly appreciate your comprehensive and bold review. Please let me know if further actions are needed to improve the article. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the "Active foreign policy" heading, I don't think your argument for keeping it, unamended, holds good. For a start, you don't need "active". With or without that, it's a very specific title to use for the period it covers, and the non-foreign aspects within the section are quite substantial – the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs. My preferred option would be to incorporate the three paragaphs into a separate subsection, but at the very least you should amend the title to, perhaps, "Foreign and domestic policies". Ping me when you've resolved this. Brianboulton (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Borsoka has dealt effectively with the issues I have raised in the course of this review. I believe the article now meets the featured article criteria, and hope to see it promoted soon (the nominator's first, I believe). A request for further reviewers would not be amiss. Brianboulton (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment I am tied up with TFA scheduling issues, a review backlog, and trying to progress my own work, so I can't do this immediately. I'll check back in a few days to see if it still needs doing, but hopefully someone will pick it up before then. Brianboulton (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it needs to be conducted by a reviewer, and you should then respond to queries/concerns as with any other review. I'll post a request for this at WT:FAC as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
"relled": relied?
"The opening of Stephen's tomb was followed by the occurrence of healing miracles, which are attributed by historian Kristó to mass psychosis and deception.": Unless the implication is "misattributed", the sentence contradicts itself. "by reports of healing miracles" would fix the self-contradiction, but I don't have a position on how to fix the sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is an interesting article and a lot of work has gone into it, but it relies extensively on original research. For example there are quotations and citations from Hartvic's hagiographical life and Thietmar's nearly contemporary chronicle. There is an extensive list of primary sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles, thank you for your remark. However, I think you misunderstand the concept of OR. Sentences based on academic works cannot be qualified as OR. If an academic work refers to a primary source we can (should) use the standard English translation of that source. Borsoka (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles, that was my first reaction too. After spending more time on the article, I came to Borsoka's point of view. All of the analysis is from third-party sources; only quotations of the original sources are cited to the primary sources, and I believe that falls within policy. Karanacs (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is in many respects a first rate article on an important and neglected subject, but I am still concerned about its use of primary evidence. I am not sure that including quotations cited to original sources falls within Wiki policy. This applies in an article about a work of literature in describing the contents of the work, but extensive quotations from medieval sources which may not be reliable are a different matter. My main concern is that it is not always clear whether the claims of medieval writers are endorsed by modern historians. Three examples of problematical passages are:
"Stephen's official biography, written by Bishop Hartvik and sanctioned by Pope Innocent III, narrates that he "was fully instructed in the knowledge of the grammatical art" in his childhood,[18] implying that he studied Latin.[2]" Hartvik (or Hartvic, the spelling is inconsistent) wrote a hagiography of Stephen. It is described as a hagiography in the title of the translation and the quotes from it make clear that it was not an impartial account. To describe it as a biography which "narrates" facts is misleading. The first citation is to Hartvik, the second to a historian. If what is being said is that Hartvik claimed that Stephen was instructed in the grammatical arts and x said this implies that he studied Latin, then put in that form it would be valid, but not as stated.
Dudley Miles, thank you for your remarks. Please let me copy here the whole context of the above sentence: "Stephen's official biography, written by Bishop Hartvik and sanctioned by Pope Innocent III, narrates that he "was fully instructed in the knowledge of the grammatical art" in his childhood, implying that he studied Latin. His two other late 11th-century biographies do not mention any grammatical studies, stating only that he "was brought up by receiving an education appropriate for a little prince". Kristó says that the latter remark only refers to Stephen's physical training, including his participation in hunts and military actions." Gyula Kristó (a Hungarian historian, specialist of the the history of the Hungarian people and Hungary till the 14th century) writes: "According to the evidence of one of the three legends (life history) of Stephen written later on, he studied 'grammatica' (grammar) in his childhood that can refer exclusively to his learning of the Latin language. However, we better take this kind of information with caution. The medieval sovereigns, apart from some really conspicuous exceptions (like for example the Hungarian Kingd Coloman), never attained knowledge of writing and that is something that we have to keep in mind in case of Stephen as well. His other legend does not even mentione his grammatical studies and touches on his youth only lightly by saying that "he was brought up by receiveing an education approproate for a littele prince". This education meant much more a physical training (hunting, participation in military actions) than an intellectual refinement." (Kristó 2002, p. 15.). I think that the article properly summarizes the scholarly POV and the direct quote from Stephen's hagiography is based on the cited scholarly work. Consequently, no OR can be detected. Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This misses the point of my comment, which is that describing Hartvik's hagiography as an "official biography" which "narrates" is misleading. Your reply also gives a different slant to what you say in the article. You say there that according to Kristo an appropriate education for a prince is physical training, but also that one of his tutors later founded a monastery, which could suggest that he probably received an academic education. You do not mention in the article the further comments of Kristo which you quote above, implying that it is unlikely that he learnt to read. Also you are still inconsistent on the spelling Hartvik or Hartvic. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles, thank you for your comments. (1) Hartvik was changed. (2) Actually, it was not me who wrote of an "official biography". "My" version was the following: "Stephen's Legend written by Hartvik narrates that ...", but it was changed either by a copyeditor or during the GA review [6]. The article (under the subtitle "Holy King") substantiates the use of the expression "official biography/official legend" - I could accept any of the two versions. (3) I assume you refer to Count Deodatus (a nobleman of Italian origin) who founded the Tata Abbey. Why do you think that the reference to him and his monastery "could suggest that he (Stephen/Count Deodatus ??) probably received an academic education"? (4) The article does not state that Stephen could read or write. Why should we state that he could not read and write? Should this negative information be mentioned in connection with all medieval monarchs? (5) Based on a historian's work, the article says that one of his medieval biographies says that Stephen learnt Latin, but two other biographies does not mention this, which (according to Kristó) implies, that he only received a physical training. Borsoka (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Stephen, who according to the Illuminated Chronicle "was for the first time girded with his sword",[38]" This is cited to the Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle but is it endorsed by historians? This is not clear.
Pál Engel (a Hungarian historian, specialiast of the history of Hungary between 896 and 1526) writes in his cited work: "Among the foreign knights one should mentione the brothers Hont and Pázmány, who were later remembered as having girded Stephen with his sword before the campaing against Koppány..." (Engel 2001, p. 39.). Gyula Kristó, whose work is also referred to, writes: "When Koppány, after having passed around Lake Balaton set out to measure himslef against the prince, Stephen was ceremoniously girded with the sword in Esztergom ..." (Kristó 2002, p. 19.). I do not have the English (cited) version of the third Hungarian historian, György Györffy. In the Hungarian version of his work (Györffy, György (2000). István király és műve. Balassi Kiadó. ISBN9789635068968.), also mentions that Stephen was girded with a sword and refers to the Hungarian chronicles (one of them being the Illuminated Chronicle) as the source of this piece of information. Consequently, the statement is based on the works of three historians and the Hungarian chronicles (one of them being the Illuminated Chronicle) were their primary sources. I think that the direct quote from the Illuminated Chronicle cannot be described as OR. Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine, but as I said it is not clear in the article. If you said "According to the Illuminated Chronicle, Stephen "was for the first time girded with his sword", and this is endorsed by the historians x and y.", that would be OK. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"[H]aving completed the office of Vespers the third day, everyone expected the favors of divine mercy through the merit of the blessed man; suddenly with Christ visiting his masses, the signs of miracles poured forth from heaven throughout the whole of the holy house." This is a quote from Hartvik. Is it "colour" or a claim that Stephen was responsible for miracles? It is not clear, but as Borsoka insisted in the previous FAC that the 'Holy Dexter" had been miraculously found, I think he is probably saying that Stephen had miraculous powers, and that is POV.
Dudley Miles, as I mentioned during our previous discussion, sainthood itself is a POV. Of course, we can say that saints and their miracles are fairy tales and should be ignored, but in this case we would ignore WP:NPOV. The whole context of the above quote is the following: "Stephen's cult emerged after the long period of anarchy characterizing the rule of his immediate successors. However, there is no evidence that Stephen became an object of veneration before his canonization. For instance, the first member of his family to be named after him, Stephen II, was born in the early 12th century. Stephen's canonization was initiated by Vazul's grandson, King Ladislaus I of Hungary, who had consolidated his authority by capturing and imprisoning his cousin, Solomon. According to Bishop Hartvik, the canonization was "decreed by apostolic letter, by order of the Roman see", suggesting that the ceremony was permitted by Pope Gregory VII. The ceremony started at Stephen's tomb, where on 15 August 1083 masses of believers began three days of fasting and praying. Legend tells that Stephen's coffin could not be opened until King Ladislaus held Solomon in captivity at Visegrád. The opening of Stephen's tomb was followed by the occurrence of healing miracles, according to Stephen's legends. Historian Kristó attributes the healings either to mass psychosis or deception.". The context makes it clear that Stephen was not venerated during the four or five decades after his death, and the miracles described in his legends can be the consequences of "mass psychosis or deception". Again, I think that the quote is based on scholarly work (Kristó's cited book). Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have a fair point here. I did not look closely enough at what you said in the preceding paragraph. However, there are other quotes from primary sources where it is much less clear whether they are endorsed by historians - e.g. the one starting "[Duke Boleslav the Brave's] territory", and "At this same time, dissensions arose between the Pannonian nation and the Bavarians". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles, do you suggest that a reference to a scholarly work should be added? Actually, I do not understand your concern: 95% of the article is based on exclusively scholarly works (including the primary sources their writers cited). Borsoka (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, I can only repeat my previous comments. I am sure that no OR can be detected in the article, because all quotes from primary sources are based on scholarly work. I think that neutrality requires that some miracles, attributed to the holy king in his legends, be mentioned in the article, based on reliable sources, but sceptic scholarly views are also mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, as to the question of original research, I agree with Karanacs. There are a lot of quotations to primary sources, but all of the analysis seems to come from appropriate secondary sources. So I see no problem there.
"CEU Press" should be spelled out, as the other publishers are.
The "Crying Voice.com" link is dead.
The link with a picture of the 10,000 forint note no longer shows the picture.
The only source I have questions about is the one by Csorba. The ISBN doesn't seem to show up in WorldCat, Amazon, or Google. The link is also of no help, as it times out when I try to open it. What kind of source is it. A book? --Coemgenus (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So it's a book. OK. But is it from an academic press? A popular press? I see that you most used it to reference the section about the Holy Dexter, so my concern is over whether this is a historical work or a religious devotional guide. That is: is it an objective discussion of the hand, or a text in praise of a relic's holiness and significance? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was published by the Directorate of the Museums of Hajdú-Bihar County and it was written by a historian (no devotional guide is cited in the article). Csorba's work is mostly cited in connection with the places where the Holy Dexter was kept (Ragusa and Székesfehérvár) after it had been taken from the Szentjobb/Holy Dexter Abbey. Borsoka (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think the article is featured quality. I can see why Dudley Miles is concerned about primary sources, but I think the article stays on the right side of the line. In a couple of cases I asked for minor changes to be made to address the issue and those changes were made. I have no reservations about the article's use of sources now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to review this and will leave comments here as I go through the article. It might take me a couple of days. Ian Rose, Dudley asked me to comment on the OR issue above on which he is opposing; I'll try to include a comment on that in my review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for starting your review. I also start to modify the article and I will also make some comments on the below points.
I gather from a couple of readings of the first paragraph that the Lesser Legend and Greater Legend are two hagiographies of Stephen; this isn't very clear to the reader, since the link to "hagiography" is given as "legends", which is something rather different in English. If that's right, then perhaps a footnote, giving the dates, authorship if known, and some comments about reliability based on modern sources, would help.
I changed the expressions "legends" into "hagiographies" and added the period when they were written. More information on the three hagiographies can be read under the subtitle "Holy King". Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just come across one of the sentences that Dudley commented on: the one about Stephen being "fully instructed in the knowledge of the grammatical art". Dudley points out that this is a hagiography; certainly in English mediaeval history hagiographies are so unreliable as to be almost useless by themselves, though they can also contain useful biographical information. Wouldn't it be helpful to the reader to let them know Hartvic's work is hagiographical? To anyone's who's read a little mediaeval history that's a valuable red flag. However, I don't think the subsequent phrase, "implying that he studied Latin", is really supported by the quote you give from Kristo, above. Just based on that, I'd write this as something like: "The official hagiography of Stephen, written by Bishop Hartvic and sanctioned by Pope Innocent III, narrates that he "was fully instructed in the knowledge of the grammatical art" in his childhood. This implies that he studied Latin, though some scepticism is warranted as few kings of this era were able to write. His two other late 11th-century biographies do not mention any grammatical studies, stating only that he "was brought up by receiving an education appropriate for a little prince". If it's clear we're dealing with a hagiography, and if Kristó's doubts are made clear, I think this "narrates" is then OK.
Changed. Sincerely, I do not understand your concerns, because Kristó explicitly writes that "According to the evidence of one of the three legends (life history) of Stephen written later on, he studied 'grammatica' (grammar) in his childhood that can refer exclusively to his learning of the Latin language" (Kristó 2002, p. 15.). For me, this is not an important issue, so I accepted your suggestion. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you've done works for me, but let me add a comment for clarification. By "that can refer exclusively to his learning of the Latin language" I think you mean "this can't refer to anything but learning Latin" -- in other words, Kristó is saying it's unambiguous. He doesn't say it's definitely true, though; in fact he follows up by saying that we must be cautious. The key change to me is making it clear in the article that the sources are not regarded as reliable on this point by a modern historian; the article previously did not make that clear. I think that addresses what Dudley was commenting on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Györffy also writes, without referring to his source, that": I think this would be natural as "Györffy also writes, without identifying his source, that". However, I'm not clear why the reader needs to know that Györffy doesn't specify a source here. If we think Györffy is reliable then the reader can go to the source if they want to follow up; and since other historians are cited as agreeing with Györffy I think the remark can be cut.
Thank you; changed. The existence of "ducates" in Hungary in the 10th century is Györffy's conception, who based his theory on toponyms and similar indirect evidence. Györffy's POV was not universally accepted (for instance, Kristó debates it), but there are other historians who accept it. Györffy was a historian, his work was published by an academic institution; therefore, he is a reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "Nyitra ducate" given in quotes?
"Ducate" is a term that Györffy applied when he wrote of the (assumed) ducates/duchies in 10th-century Hungary, and he wrote of the "Nitra ducate" in connection with Stephen. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Stephen, who according to the Illuminated Chronicle "was for the first time girded with his sword" ': Dudley commented on this; I think it's OK. I've written similar things in my own articles, referring to the sources such as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, or regnal lists or charters. When I've had to refer to sources which have drawn sceptical commentary from historians I make sure the reader is aware of it, but the discussion above makes it clear that scholars take this remark at face value. Dudley, aren't the mentions of William of Malmesbury in Æthelstan analogous?
"a manuscript containing interpolations": why are the interpolations relevant?
The charter is a contemporaneous source (dated to 1002), but it was later modified many times, so its reliability can be suspect. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Stephen demonstrated his claim to reign all lands dominated by Hungarian lords": "asserted" might be better than "demonstrated".
"to confirm his international position": what does "international position" mean? I can guess what's intended but I don't think it's a clear phrase.
I changed the expressen: "He also decided to strengthen his international status by adopting the title of king." Please let me know if further modification is needed. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Stephen always demonstrated his sovereignty": "demonstrated" is not the right word; "asserted" is the best choice I can think of.
"Gyula later escaped from captivity and fled to Boleslav the Brave, Duke of Poland (r. 992–1025)": can you confirm that the footnote at the end of this sentence, citing Kristó, makes reference to the passage following from Thietmar of Merseburg?
Yes, Kristó writes: "The above-mentioned reliable work of the bishop of Merseburg left that note to us that Gyula, after having been freed or having escaped from his captivity, fled to the Polish prince, Boleslaw the Valiant; Stephen, at that, generously sent his wife after him. The German author did not forget to draw attention particularly to the humanity of Stephen rare in those medieval times." Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of disagreements between Slovak and Hungarian historians makes me wonder if there are comments you could add for the reader's benefit about partisan historiography.
Sorry, I do not clearly understand your above remark about "partisan historiography". Actually, I would like to avoid making any comments on either Hungarian or Slovak historians in connection with Stephen I. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that if it there are nationalist biases in modern historical writing about this period, the reader should know. For example, in Principality of Nitra the lead comments that "most Slovak historians believe" one version of events, but "other historians" are less certain. If something similar is true in historical works about Stephen, the reader should know that so they can assess the different historians' accounts in that light. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, thank you again for your comments. I think Stephen's life is not subject to scholarly debates because of the nationality of the historians. The history of the alleged Principality / Duchy of Nitra is a separate issue, which is only slightly connected to Stephen's life. Borsoka (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"while Thoroczkay to the southern parts of Transdanubia": this appears to be missing a word or two; perhaps it should be "while according to Thoroczkay they are the southern parts of Transdanubia". The sort of parallel construction you appear to be using isn't easy to make fluent in English.
"Stephen collected relics of a number of saints in "Cesaries"": what does "Cesaries" mean?
I added the "during his campaign in the Balkans" text, because the last sentences in the previous chapter refer to Cesaries. Borsoka (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is the quote from Rodulfus Glaber commented on by the historians you're referring to? If so, can you add a citation? This is a case where I think it's OK to use a primary source so long as a secondary source does so too, or generally indicates that the source is reliable. The same applies to the long quote from Wipo further on in the article; I think you need a citation showing that Wipo is treated as reliable by historians, and preferably showing that this particular passage is thought to be actual. As I'm sure you're aware, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has multiple versions, some of which directly contradict each other on particular events; citing the ASC has to be done with care, and with a secondary source as backup. I don't know anything about Wipo's reliability but as it's a primary source I think a backup citation is needed.
I do not have the English (cited) version of György Györffy's book. In the Hungarian version of the same work (Györffy, György (2000). István király és műve. Balassi Kiadó. ISBN9789635068968.), Györffy verbatim cites, on pages 294 and 295, the same text from Rodolfus Glaber's chronicle. Györffy also cites Wipo's reference to "dissensions" that "arose between the Pannonian nation and the Bavarians, through the fault of the Bavarians"; Györffy explicitly says that Wipo "was stick to impartiality" (Györffy (2000), page 311). Borsoka (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Stephen's conflict with Ajtony, a chieftain in the region of the river Maros—which is described in the Long Life of Saint Gerard": I suspect this needs rephrasing; as you have it it implies that the Long Life describes the river, but I would guess it actually describes the conflict with Ajtony.
"it is duly attributed to Stephen": do you mean that the usual attribution is to Stephen, and that Györffy believes this attribution is correct? If so I would suggest "it is correctly attributed to Stephen".
A general point, which I've been noticing as I read through: you use "according to <historian>" five or ten times throughout the article. Some of these are necessary because you are contrasting the views of different historians, but in some cases, such as "According to Kristó, the legends refer to a plot in which Vazul participated and his mutilation was a punishment for this act", it doesn't seem necessary to name the historian in the text. Can any of these be cut?
"According to Kristó, the legends refer to a plot in which Vazul participated and his mutilation was a punishment for this act" - I think it is a scholarly POV, because the legend does not name the conspirators, and as far as I can remember there are historians who do not identify them with Vazul and his partisans. Borsoka (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"According to historian Gábor Thoroczkay, Stephen also established the Diocese of Kalocsa in 1001." - this is also a POV, because the date of the establishment of the Kalocsa see is unknown. Borsoka (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"According to Györffy, Emeric's wife was a kinswoman of the Byzantine Emperor Basil II." - this is a POV, nobody knows who was Emeric's wife. Borsoka (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A "Cuman" lady is mentioned in the family tree, but not elsewhere; suggest linking to "Cumans", or if this is thought to be an anachronism, either linking to the "Early life" section of Géza's article, or giving a footnote to explain the term.
'Stephen was the first triumphant miles Christi ("Christ's soldier") among the canonized monarchs': I'm not familiar with the term miles Christi; is there a link possible from it?
Coord note II -- Thank you all for your comments. It's always gratifying to see serious concerns discussed in a collegial manner, as has been the case here. Of course one would prefer to see questions of sourcing largely resolved before an article gets to FAC, but it doesn't always happen that way. I am leaning towards promotion here, not because the supporting comments outnumber the objections, but because the objections have been addressed not only by the nominator but also by some of the reviewers. That said, I'd like to clarify if, among all the source discussion, someone is prepared to sign off as having spotchecked some of the references for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, given this would be the nominator's first FA? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these sources are not online, but I did spotcheck the Berend, Laszlovszky, and Szakács book, which is partly available on Amazon, and everything I saw there was cited accurately. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have FAs on six French composers: Bizet, Fauré, Massenet, Messiaen, Poulenc and Saint-Saëns. I hope Ravel will be admitted to that Panthéon. The article has had the benefit of a peer review from Wikipedia's finest, to whom I am most grateful. I have enjoyed writing about Ravel – an enigmatic figure – and I hope reviewers here, and other visitors to the page, will enjoy reading about him and his music. – Tim riley talk16:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Bravo! I also participated in the peer review. I read the article on three occasions then and see little need to do so again before providing my support here. "I do have one comment, about the sentence "Some of his piano music, such as Gaspard de la nuit (1908) is exceptionally difficult to play, and his complex orchestral works such as Daphnis et Chloé (1912) require skilful balance in performance." Unless I am misreading the syntax, it seems to me that there should be a comma after "(1908)" to isolate "such as Gaspard de la nuit (1908)". Syek88 (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So there should be (and now is). My teachers were telling me off in the 1960s for persistently forgetting to close subordinate clauses – a habit I have never managed to break during the following fifty years. Thank you very much for your input at PR and support here. Tim riley talk06:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I missed out on the peer review (if you expect me at the ball, an invitation is de rigueur) so a few comments here. Part I, I will conclude tomorrow with the music.
Lede
". Among his works to enter the repertoire ..." I know what you mean to say here, I'm just not sure you actually do. Is this correct in British English?
" the couple took Ravel on a seven-week cruise on their yacht in June and July 1905, the first time he had travelled abroad." possibly you should mention where they went in general terms to establish that they indeed went abroad.
"He appeared with most of the leading orchestras in Canada and the US from coast to coast and visited twenty-five cities" I might cut "from coast to coast" as it leads to mild ambiguity (did all those orchestras travel with him) and 25 cities are enough that the reader will assume a wide travel.
Very true. I absorbed the information about Asquith but failed to take in that on Ravel. Very sorry. Your rephrasing and explanations look fine. I should have the remainder tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot more be said about Bolero? That is the one that people have heard of, after all. Possibly in the legacy section? Mentioning its considerable popularity? Satisfying readers expectations and all that.
I've added two sentences in the Life section and some more in the Music section.
Should italicize Grove Music Online and The Oxford Companion to Music
I don't usually italicise the former, feeling it to be more a publishing department than the title of a work, but have no strong objection, and have done as you suggest. – Tim riley talk08:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FN64 missing comma, same with 193, 195, check for others
Support: Read it at peer review, all my points satisfactorily resolved – tried hard to find a few more to raise here, but couldn't. I'm glad someone is still writing top-quality composer articles, and this is fit to stand with the best of them. Brianboulton (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My few comments were dealt with at PR, and a further read-through from me shows no additional problems: indeed, the article has been strengthened since then. - SchroCat (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Maurice_Ravel_1925.jpg: for the given tag, "Reasonable evidence must be presented that the author's name (e.g., the original photographer, portrait painter) was not published with a claim of copyright in conjunction with the image within 70 years of its original publication". Nikkimaria (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note added to file. It is the practice of the Bibliothèque nationale de France to identify and credit photographers of pictures in its archive when it can do so (see this one – click on "Detailed information", top right) but it has been unable to do so in this case. Tim riley talk07:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- strong support and checks complete but as it's only been open a week I'd like to give the review another few days to see if anyone else would like to comment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for another really good article which is very worthy description of this wonderful composer. I cound't find anything to comment on, and I support this nomination. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"City of Angels" is one of the most memorable and iconic songs recorded by Thirty Seconds to Mars. Since the first review in September 2014, the article underwent a copyediting treatment and recently received a peer review. I believe that it is very close to the FA criteria. I would ask the editors who oppose to provide their reason for such and add additional comments how can I improve the article. Thank you. Earthh (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. After a few small edits, I can once again affirm my confidence in this article's suitability for FA status. Nice job. Tezero (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a source for '"City of Angels" was met with general acclaim from music critics.'? As a summary sentence, it is a nice way to commence the section of the article, but if there is no source it is surely original research. The equivalent section for the music video doesn't have a summary sentence of this kind, and it looks fine.
Kerrang! magazine says "Upon the album release, City of Angels was widely acclaimed by most commentators". I've put this as a source. I've also found a source for the critical acclaim the music video received, adding a summary sentence in the reception section.
'"City of Angels" received critical acclaim from music critics, who commended the composition, the track's lyrical content, and Leto's vocal performance.' - what about the negative reviews? This sentence implies that the critics were unanimous. (Also, consider the repetition of "critic*").
I've put "City of Angels received general acclaim from music critics", as the critical reception says. 'general acclaim' means that it got mostly positive reviews against a couple of mixed ones.
"The video was positively reviewed by critics who complimented the simplicity and cohesion with the song's message." - a comma would help here.
Fixed.
The "Composition and theme" section gives us an overview of the form of the song, but only until the chorus that follows the first verse. Can this be completed? Anything about keys/harmony?
As noted in the previous FAC, there's no sheet music published at Musicnotes.com and I couldn't examine the song's structure in depth. I've added something about the bridge and the drum-heavy climax.--Earthh (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There are a few too many passive-voice sentences and a few too many unattributed quotes (eg "gently burbling synthesisers") for my taste. I'd encourage these to be tweaked but would not oppose over them. It's a fairly strong article - I don't mind the number of (attributed) quotes, which was criticised in the last FAC. The only question to my mind is whether the prose, which is certainly competent, amounts to "engaging". All the other criteria are satisfied, and on balance I think the prose is good enough. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Single artwork is properly licensed; other images are under free use.
The audio file length is 27s, but the caption says it's 30. You may also reduce the audio quality to 60–70 kbps.
Reduced.
Did you change the description (in the article) to fit the actual audio length?
Done.
Is LadyGunn (ref 4) an appropriate source for FAs? I see the interview is credited, but it doesn't hurt to ask.
As noted in the peer review, LadyGunn is an independent magazine and that reference is an interview with Leto. I could remove it if it isn't reliable enough.
If you can find a better reference, go for it. But if this was resolved at the PR, I wouldn't make an issue of it.
This article is about a radioactive chemical element. It has been one step away from this process since 2012, when its prose was heavily improved by a GOCE member. It became a GA a long time ago, and now, after recent edits, it's a sure great article. After additions in 2012 and 2015, it is definitely comprehensive (but still not featuring too much), and it should be interesting enough for those familiar with chemistry; however, some effort has been applied to make an article on a technical topic like this one readable even for those who are not. R8R (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@R8R Gtrs: could you please double check the half-lives? There appear to be some half-life discrepancies between those shown in the image and this source (p. 64). The image may need to be amended to match this source, if the original source cannot be located. Sandbh (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's good that you noticed it. My first idea was to check the NUBASE database, it's a huge source for nuclei stuff here on Wiki, but the link didn't work, and cached versions didn't appear as well. However, I just did some search and I found it; it matches the data we present. I updated the reference and the link therein for both the article and the picture description.--R8R (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sound choice. I checked each decay path and found a discrepancy for At-217; image shows 32 s; NUBASE shows 0.032 s. There are some other minor discrepancies: Np-237: 2.14e+06 y v 2.144e+06 y; Pa-233: 27 d v 26.967 d; Ra-225: 15 d v 14.9 d; Bi-213 46 m v 45.59 m; Pb-209 3.25 m v 3.253 m; Tl-209 2.2 m v 2.161 m. Since At-217 will need to be amended I presume the other minor discrepancies should be done? NUBASE carefully explains (pp. 9–10) how they have arrived at their half-lives, given differences in the literature. Sandbh (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed those roundings were fine and I indeed missed the fact the astatine and lead half-lives were measured in time units different than those the picture showed. But it would definitely not hurt to match the source more closely. I double-checked it and corrected it; I think it should be fine now.--R8R (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still seeing the old image in the article. In the picture history the corrected version is listed below the old graphic---should be the other way round? In the corrected version I believe Fr should read 4.9 m and Pb 3.253 h.
I see things the way the are supposed to be. It may have to do with that the server does not always immediately react to such changes. In some time, it should fix itself or maybe it already did.--R8R (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot support it as long as the infobox contains: "Pronunciation /ˈæstətiːn/ or /ˈæstətɪn/ AS-tə-teen or AS-tə-tin". I know this is a wider issue but we really do not need the respell renderings as well as IPA. --John (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since the IPA links to Help:IPA for English#Key, and the mouseover for each segment of the IPA gives its meaning, I think we can safely get rid of the respelling for all elements. (In the case of cobalt it's downright harmful; the second syllable isn't pronounced like the word bolt!) Double sharp (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit, it's not really a question I ever considered. It's at very least a Project Elements-wide thing and I don't usually get into such things. I have given it a deep thought nonetheless.
For most elements, the pronunciation is simple. Why not abandon it altogether? There are some names pronounced not the way you'd expect them to be pronounced. Dubnium (doob-), darmstadtium (-shtahdt-), etc. But those are relatively new and follow the original pronunciations in Russian and German, correspondingly. There are also those synthetic unun- names (oon-oon-). I bet those need pronunciation keys. But we're talking about astatine now.
From a perspective of an English learner, it's not really so easy. For example, why is "-tine" in "astatine" pronounced not as "tine," but as either "teen" or "tin"? I took my time to find an answer in the Internet, but I failed to do so. (I don't really consider myself a learner, even though some learning would never make things worse, and could be actually helpful for me, but, as I said, I'd given it a deep thought.) Why, really? To my language experience, which is certainly not perfect (since I'm not a native speaker and don't even currently live in an English-dominant country), but, I believe, extensive enough, it feels right to pronounce the syllable as "tin," but I can't really tell why. This does raise a question whether we should include the pronunciation key.
You can argue the whole English Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a student's book (which is indeed true), and thus it shouldn't teach you how to pronounce things, since it's aimed at native speakers or their equals, as any regular encyclopedia; there's even a Simple English Wikipedia. On the other hand, I think I'd use it. If it helps to resolve possible ambiguity, why not. Won't really hurt us, since pronunciation is a very basic property of a title of any article, doesn't take a significant cut of an article, and might actually resolve some questions (after all, it's not a typical English word, but a very technical one with no related word in common English vocabulary; for comparison, not wanting to transcribe "nuclear fission" is certainly fine). In either case, it's really a part of a wider question that should be decided on elsewhere.--R8R (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that this needs a wider discussion. My point is that one pronunciation guide may be needed on some elements, many would be fine with none (gold, tin, silver, oxygen) but there are none that need two separate systems side by side like most elements currently have. --John (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
re John (and Double sharp, R8R Gtrs). I have met John in this issue some weeks ago here. That discussion did not evolve beyond step one (opening paragraph + my reply), and so did not conclude in a new consensus. As for this FAC post: I see John puts up two critiques: (1) remove the {{Respell}} pronunciation altogether (from all elements) and (2) IPA is not needed in e.g. tin, in the later reply.
About (2) remove IPA and respell completely from some other element pages (element infoboxes): is not on-topic here, it is not about astatine.
About (1): remove {{Respell}}. The one argument mentioned here: "we do not need respell renderings as well as IPA": This is a wider issue and not astatine specific (which in itself could be a closing conclusion, but alas). In general and in this article, IPA and respell are about the same, but they themselves are not the same, so this is not a redundancy. Then, the presence of {Respell} is based on WP:MOS/Pronunciation, which says in its lede:
For English, the Wikipedia respelling system, using the {{respell}} template, can be used in addition to the IPA.
I can not add much to this. Since adding {Respell} follows MOS, this can not be a FA blocker. As I read it, John asks for a MOS change. I want to keep {Respell} in. -DePiep (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine to continue the general discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements, though I tend to agree with your last statement here as well. Just to be utterly clear, my oppose very much still counts for this nomination as long as it has the ugly and redundant material I highlighted above. --John (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prose means the grammatical structure. I'm not seeing the connection. Since it is an informational table, I'd expect the main concern to be 1c. Is the information presented incorrect? Praemonitus (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Pronunciation /ˈæstətiːn/ or /ˈæstətɪn/ AS-tə-teen or AS-tə-tin" your idea of brilliant prose? It looks clunky to me. Hence my oppose. --John (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the information is compliant with the MoS, how would you propose it be reworded? (Keeping in mind that this is a table.) Praemonitus (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose that it would be better to reword this table cell to "Pronunciation /ˈæstətiːn/ or /ˈæstətɪn/". --John (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not prose, so there is not even a possibility to qualify that non-prose. I note that the argument now is full circle. -DePiep (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you do not have a valid concern since all you did is remove information that is allowed under WP:PRON. "For English, the Wikipedia respelling system, using the {{respell}} template, can be used in addition to the IPA." Praemonitus (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Allowed /= optimal. FAC is the realm of the optimal. Having four pronunciation guides on an article is not optimal. I hold that this fails 1a, as I said above. You are welcome to your opinion on whether my concern is or is not valid. I suppose it will be up to the FAC delegate to decide that, not you. --John (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you now merely state the obvious and your preference seems entirely personal and resolute, further discussion seems pointless. Yes I'm sure the FAC delegate will make a suitable adjudication of your concern. Praemonitus (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May I respectfully ask @DePiep: and @Praemonitus: are there are any reasons for retaining the second pronunciation guide? Since it isn't mandated by WP:MOS, and in the interests if progressing this nomination, I'm currently inclined to remove the second guide. If this is a broader question that extends across the inclusion of second pronunciation guides for other elements then it would be better to have that discussion in WP:ELEM, and subsequently revisit astatine if needs be, rather than compromise a support. I agree with John that the pronunciation cell plus its accompanying entry cell constitutes prose (i.e. written or spoken language other than poetry). Sandbh (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First response: "and in the interests if progressing this nomination": as the presence of respelling is explicitly within MOS (link cited above), this is not a FAC treshold.
I don't think the subthread above (last contribution 19:37 by Praemonitus) has lead to an other conclusion (i.e., no changes to follow), unless someone can point to a sound reasoning in there we must have missed. And I don't agree with your opinion that the data row constitutes prose. That was introduced only to wiggle in a WP:FACR argument (after which no substance followed). Since you, Sandbh, note that the label "pronunciation" is part of the prose: that makes it even less likely prose. The whole data row is not spoken as it is written, and it is not intended to be so. It is not a sentence, not even a non-verb one. There is no prose in context either. It is not prose (which is mainly described in opposition to poetry only anyway), it is a list item. (Let me add this pun - skip it if you're not in for fun today: the pronunciation is poetry, its rhyming!). Also, please check your argument against this: why would the respell be bad prose, and the IPA be OK? For the record I want to note that IMO John's contributions in this topic above introduce word play, and in other places about this same topic the tone turned less constructive (1, 2). This about the frame of arguments, my actual reasons to keep it in may follow (but are already present in the discussions). -DePiep (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
re Sandbh's Remove Respelling pronunciation guide "in the interests if progressing this nomination": I think we have established from the MOS that the addition (keeping Respell) is not a contra-indicator for FA. And since IPA is not a Latin alphabet, WP:accessability is a serious reason to add pronunciation respelled. -DePiep (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'cationic salts' and 'radiocolloid' are technical terms that should be linked.
"cationic salts" could do better with a rewording, which I tried to make. "Radiocolloid" means "radioactive colloid" (quite obvious, isn't it). The word "colloid" was linked before, and it occurred when we were talking about chemistry, for which radioactivity does not matter. In medicine, radioactivity is important (it's why astatine is used in medicine at all), and it is commonly shown by that "radio-" prefix in this context. I'm not really sure if we should link it again to colloid (we could link it to the radiocolloid article if we had one).
"J., T. P. (2010).": For consistency, the 'J.' should be expanded.
Definitely :) Fixed it.
"R., Kalervo (1956)." Is this correct? (Last name first?)
I just checked, the person is Kalervo Rankama (this is a Finnsh name, surnames follow given names, as in all European names), so the correct version would be "Rankama, K." I corrected it.
Support. An unusually comprehensive treatment given the relatively obscure subject matter. I worked on it but the foundations had already been laid by User:R8R Gtrs and User:Allens by the time I came on board. Meets all the FA criteria as far as I can see, including some nice images. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this article. Sandbh (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From the lead: "Elemental astatine has never been viewed..." and then "may have a dark or lustrous appearance". I think you need a conditional or something for the second sentence. How can you describe the appearance of something that can't physically exist? "would likely have...", maybe.
Thank you, I've adapted your suggestion and changed the second sentence so that it starts, "Astatine is likely to have a dark…" Sandbh (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From the compounds section: "addition of silver(I) then precipitates astatine, only partially as silver(I) astatide (AgAt) (or not at all)". Not sure how to interpret the last parenthetical. If some or all of the precipitate isn't silver astatide, any idea what it is?
I've copy edited this to try and make it clearer. If there is no precipitate I gather the astatine remains in solution as At0 or At+. Sandbh (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of red links in the compounds section. Are these articles likely to be created?
I refreshed my red link fu and have removed these as they're unlikely to be created soon, nor as anything better than stubs. 10:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
In the uses section: "this is long enough to permit multistep labeling strategies." - This seems to be the only occurrence of the word 'labeling' in the article, so it's not clear what this refers to.
There's an entire paragraph about astatine's advantages in treating the thyroid, but thyroid treatment isn't in the table, and the paragraph never does actually come out and say that astatine is used this way. The 'preferable in diagnosis' claim is cited to a source from 1970. Can you be a bit clearer on this point?
I removed the reference to thyroid treatment as, while it is mentioned in the older literature i.e. Lavrukhina and Pozdnyakov (1970) this particular line of research doesn't appear to have gone anywhere in the more recent literature judging by here and e.g. PubMed. Does my edit look OK? Sandbh (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so. I had a similar edit in mind, because I wasn't able to find any recent reference to that being actually used, but at any moment of time I thought I could be missing something and more search was needed. Now I am quite confident, this issue has been taken care of properly, thank you.--R8R (talk) 09:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For completeness' sake: no objections to the use of the respell template. This seems like a style issue best resolved elsewhere.
Sorry I didn't get back to this in a reasonable amount of time. I just read the newly revised "Uses and precautions" section and its coverage of medical uses. Much improved but I think this section still needs a little bit of refinement.
"Results of early experiments indicated that a cancer-selective carrier would need to be developed; this did not occur until the 1970s." Checking the source, this is apparently referring to monoclonal antibodies - hybridomas were developed in the 70s, but humanization didn't happen till the 80s and the first cancer drugs using targeted antibodies started getting approved in the late 90s. I see that there were some animal studies on astatine delivery by antibody and your description follows the source, but from a biology perspective it's a bit oversimplified.
Yes, monoclonal antibodies are the bodies in question; also, I (and, as far as I can see, Google Books) haven't heard a word of astatinated hybridomas. I specifically mentioned we are talking about mAbs at that moment, and it seemed it was the change that was needed; but if I missed something and something else should be done, please let me know.
Sorry, I wasn't clear - hybridomas are cells used to make monoclonal antibodies. I'm sure the proteins must be astatinated after purification, since trying to do it to the cells would probably kill them :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You also wikilink carrier proteins in this paragraph, but that article is about endogenous proteins that facilitate transport of ions, nutrients, other proteins, and so on. I think this discussion would be clearer if you mentioned examples from the sources (antibodies and signaling proteins).
Okay. One of the sources also mentioned affibodies, I added those, too.
I trimmed and copy edited this section so it now refers just to molecular carriers "such as these". Also mentioned the potential weakness of some carbon- astatine bonds. I may put affibodies and signaling proteins (plus a citation for the latter) back in a little later today. Sandbh (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Last one: last paragraph, "astatine is preferentially concentrated..." - make it clear in this sentence that we're still talking about animal studies. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and tried to fix the mentioned issues as close to what was suggested as I could. (It's been quite a while since this section was written, and much was there before the work started, so it took me some research to make sure I'm doing it right, and I still would love you to check if I got it right.)--R8R (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find the second para to be a bit too long/detailed. I would drop some of the "believed to be" stuff.
Are we talking about the lead? If so (or even if not), what exactly do you find superfluous? I think we have just enough, we don't go into details, those are very basic things (color, appearance, conductivity in very general, mp in very general), just for the lead.
put "are consistent with it behaving as a halogen (the group of elements including chlorine and fluorine), specifically as a heavier analog of iodine" then change
"It will probably have a higher melting point than iodine, comparable to those of bismuth and polonium. Chemically, astatine can behave as a halogen (the group of elements including chlorine and fluorine), and could be expected to form ionic astatides with alkali or alkaline earth metals; it is known to form covalent compounds with nonmetals, including other halogens. It can also behave as a metal, with a cationic chemistry that distinguishes it from the lighter halogens. " to
"Astatine is likely to have a dark or lustrous appearance and be either a semiconductor or a metal, and it will probably have a higher melting point than iodine. Chemically, astatine can behave similar to other halogens, as it expected to form ionic astatides with alkali or alkaline earth metals and known to form covalent compounds with nonmetals, including other halogens. However, it can also behave as a metal, with a cationic chemistry that distinguishes it from the lighter halogens." Nergaal (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I gave it a try. As close to what I understood as I could.
"described as being a black solid" => as probably being a
Fair enough.
"half of a given quantity of astatine will vaporize in an hour" this is incredibly vague. the time will be heavily dependent on the sample size and shape. I find this sentence a bit overly-simplified, if not possibly wrong
Lavrukhina and Pozdnyakov say, "The vaporization from clean glass surfaces can be approximately described by an exponential curve with a half-vaporization period of about 1 hr." I added the qualifier "approximately" to the wiki article text.
The old naming of isotopes is archaic enough that even chemists these days might not understand them. Linking the archaic names the the respective history section of the radioactive elements works well for those needing clarification. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Also, the isotopes have been explained in parentheses by now. Should be good enough.
wikilink cyclotron
Sure
Karlik and Bernert => which of the chains; also which 2 of the other 3 chains?
Their first suggestion was that astatine-218 occurred and was an alpha emitter (confirmed, uranium series), and it was suggested that so did and were At-216 (not confirmed) and -215 (confirmed, actinium series). And later still, we got the neptunium series. I rewrote it that way, except I left out the unconfirmed isotope part because this seemed to be an unnecessary detail (but it could be argued it is important. It should be fine either way).
is "the four natural decay chains" an accepted term? if yes, maybe wikilink?
Not a real term, just a thing of prose. We also had "astatine was found as a product of naturally occurring decay chains" just before this. I don't think anyone will be confused.
I don't see the point for the mass excess for daughter nuclei; also the first columns in the table don't seem to sort well
Sorting seems to be fine by me; what is the problem? Mass excesses are aimed for those who are not too good with the whole nuclei topic, so they (some of them who can approximate subtraction without writing it down) understand where this would come from, thus better understanding of the article in general (and courage to understand other parts). We're not limited with space, and we don't have an awfully long article here so we have to cut all details we could.
sorting seems fine now but I still think the table is just too much. yes we have space (especially in the isotopes list) but currently the numbers look daunting. Are the numbers in column 3 and 4 saying anything interesting to the reader? If yes, then put them in a graph, but don't put them in the main text of a wikipedia FA. Most people are intimidated by numbers, especially of tables with 5 sig-figs. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I moved the table to isotopes of astatine for now. (Okay, it was there; so just deleted it from the main article.)
"alpha hl" => "alpha decay hl"
Did it in a note. Don't really want to do it in the table because shortened column titles are usually fine and this is explained in a note.
I took another look. We have sufficient space. I added the word "decay" there.
the meta-stable isotopes discussion should be trimmed and moved at the end of the section
While moving it down certainly can be argued for (I followed), I don't see the point in trimming. While you and I understand, what this all is about, not everyone does. We don't have a super large article here. It certainly won't kill us to make this more understandable for those who are unfamiliar with the whole nuclei thing.
Fair enough for "with the total amount in the Earth's entire crust estimated to be less than one gram at any given time." However, I didn't add the word for "although it is the least abundant of the non-transuranic elements in the Earth's crust," because it would seem redundant here.
"-217, -218, and -219" => should the dashes be here?
Could you quote a rationale on such punctuation? A quick look didn't help me with this. I'll try again a bit later, but if you know it, please, let me know.
Unless there is a grammatical rule that rules, I'd prefer the hyphen to stay. The more complete construct is like "astatine-216, -217 and -218". The hyphen indicates the omission of "astatine" in the listing, from the name pattern. Without prefixed hyphen "217" suggests a stand-alone word (noun), which it is not. Plain "217" is not the way "astatine-217" is written in sources. -DePiep (talk) 08:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is the correct punctuation, I still find it to look weird (maybe because it involves numbers). For enumerations I would prefer to either say "isotope x through y", or use the "^xAt, ^yAt, etc" notation. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Isotope x through y" would make sense. The latter nomenclature might be difficult for those who are not familiar with it (they may be few, but not none). However, Materialscientist did it your way, with dashes. I don't see the need to correct that.--R8R (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can not claim that the dashes are correct writing, just that I easily recognize the list meant. "x through y" of course could only work in a complete series, which is not always the case in the article. -DePiep (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your words and for your time. I checked issues that seemed to be the easiest to fix. I will think about others on Wednesday or Thursday.--R8R (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the table and I do think some table should be present. But I think the highest utility columns would be these ones: Z || H-l || % alpha || % beta || %SF. It would basically cover part of what is now in the infobox but for a longer list and in more detail. Nergaal (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no information on the spectrum, see doi=10.1364/JOSA.54.000965 Absorption Spectrum of Astatine RALPH McLAUGHLIN JOSA, Vol. 54, Issue 8, pp. 965-967 (1964)
Prose is still a tad choppy but the subject matter I can see is hard to knead together. I tweaked a bunch of things - yo might want to check I haven't accidentally changed the meanings. Can't see any deal-breakers prose-wise and can't see any omissions.
Comment from me as a reader. The infobox now says: "Element category: metalloid, sometimes classified as a nonmetal, may be a metal[1]". Is it just me thinking that "sometimes" and "may be" better be merged in to the same wording, to note the scientific issue? As it is now, it reads like a different 'scale' of dispute/uncertainity. I also note that metalloid-metal-nonmetal makes a complete trend, there are no more options. In other words, it now says like 'it could be anything'. I do like the sentence style, not just a listing. (Caveat: English language and topic are not my specialty). -DePiep (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The listing tries to show that astatine, although classified as a metalloid is sometimes instead classified as nonmetal (due to the instinctive presumption that because astatine is a halogen it must be a nonmetal). We've added that it "may be" a metal based on the 2013 relativistic modelling work by Hermann, Hoffmann, Ashcroft. My impression is that the jury is still out on their work (see the second external link: Astatine: Halogen or Metal?) although Google is showing 7 citations to date, with no dissenters that I can see. Sandbh (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've changed the category to: "metalloid, sometimes classified as a nonmetal, or a metal" and added the 1940 and 2014 citations to the "or a metal" bit. Sandbh (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing with the articles on fluorine (which I am notable for) and heavier actinides I am confident that only criteria 1a remains contentious. While I am generally OK with the prose some technical details concern me:
The use of in-line atomic masses (astatine-211) over superscripts (211 At, 202m1 At, etc.) – isn't this standard formatting when referring to isotopes?
Our MOS:CHEM says: "Isotopes should be labelled by their mass number, e.g. 14C and 18F.", and here more specific: write the element name. I can read this as not requiring the symbol per se. IUPAC's red book (pdf p.60) says: "... is named oxygen-18 and has the symbol 18O." This leaves open to write the name in prose. (as I prefer btw). -DePiep (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison, they often write things like "ingots of Fe" in contexts of chemistry or similar ones. It doesn't mean this is the correct way; it just takes less space and (given the context) the reader is supposed to be easily able to understand what is meant. It is basically the same; using the "symbol after a superscripted mass number" notation outside of the equations is a jargon, which is often used because it may seem favorable, given the readers will understand it. But it cannot be seen as the right way to refer to nuclides. Not to mention accessibility: if you know nothing about nuclides and stuff, astatine-211 is, well, some kind of astatine, while 211 At is... what is it, actually? I don't know, this article is too difficult, I'll leave it.
Oh, my hands are back online. I think we could add a short note on the first occurrence of the AZ notation in the main text to inform the reader. ParclyTaxel10:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This idea does make sense; I gave it a thought. Currently, we only use this notation in the uses table. I think it's okay to write "211At-containing" instead of "astatine-211-containing" (as long as I remember, we had it that way some time before, but, you know, looks). Anyway, I'm sure that if a reader is puzzled by this notation, he won't read and will just skip the table anyway, because it (especially the compounds) is quite hardcore if you're not familiar with (at least, the basics of) radiochemistry and stuff, and for those who will read it, this notation is understandable anyway. Plus, while it is certainly considered jargon outside of equations (and some chemical isotope-related nomenclature), the nomenclature is very common in atomic physics and radiochemistry; while I do want to make this article fairly accessible, I'm afraid we may end up having to explain a huge number of things to make sure everyone understands them, so this would be some an overkill. That is why I would not do it: it would be practically useless (given the context) and explaining the very basics of nomenclature may be too much.--R8R (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reconsidered. While I was writing the reply, the idea grew on me, plus we do this with the explanation of the isomer notation. I added a note in the nuclear reactions table; I think it belongs there.--R8R (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some clusters of sentences appear fragmented, especially the synthesis procedures: "The astatine-containing cyclotron target is heated to a temperature of around 650 °C. The astatine volatizes and is condensed in (typically) a cold trap. Higher temperatures of up to around 850 °C may increase the yield, at the risk of bismuth contamination from concurrent volatization." → "For "wet" extraction the cyclotron target is heated to around 650 °C, from which astatine volatizes and condenses in a cold trap or other suitable confinement; temperatures up to 850 °C may be employed for higher yield, albeit risking concurrent bismuth contamination."
I wrote it this way because short sentences are easier to understand and to follow, you get a period (thus a very short break) every time you are presented a new fact, so you understand everything within these breaks and you don't have to re-read sentences. Long sentences don't allow that, and you don't have that moment to catch up with the text if you didn't get something immediately, and unless you stop yourself (which a period could do) and think for another moment, you'll find out you missed that one and have to re-read the text. Even semicolons are not as good as periods at breaking text and allowing small pauses. (I don't remember if the Soviet book this section heavily relies on uses short or long sentences; could be both. I don't have the book on me at the moment, although I may check later if you wish.) The copyedit conducted in 2012 didn't change it, even though it was incredibly thorough, so I would basically suggest it's not really a problem. But if anyone else agrees short sentences are not desirable, I guess we may change this.
I'm not for any style on this article unlike what I did to fluorine; however (as I said before) I may beautify some sentence clusters myself soon. ParclyTaxel01:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am open-minded on prose in general, so if you think you can actually improve it, please, feel free to try.--R8R (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the previous issue the "dry" and "wet" sections appear wobbly and could be folded into their parent section dealing with separation methods.
I don't really get it; how would the article benefit if we remove the subtitles? The alternative would be to remove them, and start each para with "The dry/wet technique is conducted like this: ..." (or similar), but it would just add more text we could go without and make the navigation within the section slightly more difficult. But again, if someone else agrees we do need more text and less titles, I will not argue.--R8R (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping for a topic expert to do the source review, but we'll make do with an ignorant one then :).
No disambig links - OK.
Consistent reference formatting - OK.
Academic reliable sources look OK (but a topic expert would be better to judge that). A 1940er source is only used to verify "historic" information - OK.
Dead links: Refs #7 (NUBASE) and #35 (Visscher 1996). Please check for archived links (archive.org) or possible replacements. Both sources have sufficient bibliographic information, so a link wouldn't be necessary if a replacement can't be found.
Checked this again - ref name "Audi2003" was defined twice, and the duplicate second link version was dead. I have removed the redundant cite template and added an archive link (just to be sure). All OK now. GJ
Several explanatory footnotes are not sourced. Please double-check to make sure, that all of those comments are really uncontroversial "common" knowledge or simply clarify an already sourced detail. Otherwise they should be sourced.
I have carefully checked all notes. I believe they all are well-sourced, except for one (m), where I added a reference:
a) a single quote, sourced
b) quite a singular fact, sourced (I remember adding it and the source itself)
c) two facts, both sourced
d) a singular fact, sourced
e) a general description of an electronegativity scale, sourced
f) a singular fact, sourced
g) one experiment and two singular facts, all sourced
h) just the same as in the main text, but spelled out (no ref needed)
i) just a description of the notation used in a particular table within an article (no ref needed)
j) a note we're talking about predicted rather than measured data. (No ref needed.)
k) the text of the note is a direct consequence of what is stated within the article and sourced there. This could be (and actually was) calculated via a common calculator using common nuclear decay laws. I argue this also needs no ref.
l) explains scientific nomenclature (no ref needed)
m) mentions two authors, sources one; added a source for the second author.
Hurricane Marie in 2014 was the among the strongest Eastern Pacific hurricanes on record, attaining Category 5 status on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale. A large system, it had substantial effects along the coastlines of Mexico and California despite its center remaining hundreds of miles away. Six people lost their lives due to the storm and damage in California was especially severe. A breakwater off the coast of Long Beach suffered extensive damage amounting to roughly $10 million. Hopefully you enjoy reading this as much as I did writing it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed one blatant double link, but I feel the piped links for the "Category # hurricane" are useful. I don't feel that strongly either way, though, so if they're an issue I'll remove the other extra links. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"...ranking as the six-strongest in the Pacific east of the..." — I believe it should be "sixth" strongest.
Regarding the Most intense Pacific hurricanes table, can there be a note to clarify the difference to a layman between Pacific typhoons and hurricanes? When I see the article for Typhoon Tip, there's a "Most intense Pacific typhoons" table there. Confusing for me.
"...office warned residents in Los Angeles and Ventura counties could 'potentially see the largest surf in recent years generated by a hurricane.'" — Aren't citations supposed to come right after a direct quotation?
*"The Los Angeles County Fire Department assisted with 115 ocean rescues on August 26." — Source says over 115 were conducted.
"Along the breakwater, three areas were completely gouged out by the surf while five other areas were significantly damaged." — The source for this ([11]) lists different major and significant damage numbers.
"...850 ft (260 m) saw significant damage, and a further 1,725 ft (526 m) experienced moderate damage." — I don't see that breakdown in the LA Times source. All I see is the total length of significant and moderate damage.
"...damaged a roadway at Sea Launch, within Long Beach." — I don't understand what "Sea Launch" is from the cited source. Is it the Sea Launch Commander? Is it a neighborhood in Long Beach? Is it a corporate center?
"The Army Corps estimated that it could take more than $10 million to repair and replace the damaged breakwaters in Long Beach." — The cited source says $20M for the middle breakwater alone.
"Damage at the beach was deemed the worst since September 1997 when Hurricane Linda brought large swells to the region." — I'm unclear about two things with this sentence. First, the source given for Linda only notes five men swept out to sea and rescued. It doesn't list any damage. Marie indirectly resulted in heavy damage and one California fatality. I think this storm ranks farther up in impact than Linda. Second, "damage at the beach" seems to refer to the previous sentence about Pebbly Beach and not the impact on other beaches or along a broader stretch of coastline. The NOAA source doesn't mention Pebbly Beach at all, however. Please clarify for me.
I'm just going by what the sources say in regards to the severity of damage. As for the second part, it is indeed for Pebbly Beach specifically. The NOAA source is just to verify that the "September 1997" storm is Linda, nothing more really. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've spot-checked some of the sources and everything looks to be in order in terms of verification and paraphrasing. All sources look reliable enough to support the uncontroversial and chiefly descriptive content, and citation formatting is consistent from what I can tell. I can't read much Spanish, but I don't see anything to suggest translation errors. – Juliancolton | Talk03:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. It would probably be a good idea to talk less about development and initial movement of the cyclone in the lead, since that information is immediately repeated below the lead, and since most readers will be more interested in the impacts of the hurricane. - Dank (push to talk) 00:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a lostsilent film that may or may not have been the directorial debut of the influential (if now largely ignored) J. Gordon Edwards. At GAC, I opined that I probably wouldn't even bother bringing this to FAC, but have reconsidered that stance. The primary concern left unresolved from the GA process is the deeply anemic plot summary; unlike most modern films, plot summaries for lost films require citations just like everything else (as the film can no longer source itself). Here, I've taken what I could from four different discussions of the plot ... and can still only offer 114 words for what would have been in the ballpark of a two-hour movie. Unfortunately, further plot details (I know there was a "small child" involved at some point, but nothing further there) seem as lost as the film itself. I leave it to the opinions of other editors whether that should be considered a comprehensiveness concern.
As means of disclosure, I am a WikiCup participant and this would be an eligible FA, if promoted. Additionally, I will note upfront that this would be one of the 10 shortest FA articles. I promise my next trip to FAC will be a more robust piece, regardless. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can see some point to red-linking the two companies once, but not a second time—they won't have changed their status during the course of the article
Any idea how this film (or Balboa's films in general) were lost?
It has been my understanding that key topics can (and should) be linked from both the lead and the body. In this case, that makes them stand out a bit, because they're currently redlinks, although I don't intend them to be that way for too long (Box Office will go blue via redirect once I fix the mess that is the current structure for Fox pages; Balboa ... I should probably get a stub together for until I have time to do a full write-up). As for how this film was lost, the problem here really is sourcing. The Jura and Bardin history of Balboa is the definitive work, and even they hedge and provide a non-answer to why Balboa's films have such a dismal survival rate. For this one in particular, since Fox (as Box Office) bought the rights to distribution of the film, and continued to distribute it after Fox Films' incorporation, it's almost certain that it was destroyed alongside the actual Fox films in the 1937 vault fire. But Fox has never publicly admitted just what burned (there were legal issues), and no reliable source (well, no any source, actually) that I can find outright makes that observation. So including it would be original research, even though it's probably correct. I can add some generic text about the fate of silent films in general, if that's desirable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with those answers. I thought it was possible that the fate of the film was unknown/unverifiable, just checking that there was nothing omitted. Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me?07:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found a newspaper advertisement of the era crediting "Dad Leonard" rather than "Pop Leonard"; not sure if that's of interest.
Ah, the inconsistencies of 1910s film credits! "Pop" is far more common than "Dad", and I'm inclined to think that too much of this would be out of place in the article for this particular film (he is only the eighth-billed actor, after all). But it's something I'll keep in mind if I ever get around to improving the Gus Leonard article, for certain. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The Fox Film Corporation, Box Office's corporate successor, continued to distribute St. Elmo": it took me a second to realize that you used "continued" because Fox continued to distribute the film after they succeeded Box Office. This might read more naturally as "The Fox Film Corporation continued to distribute St. Elmo after they took over/succeeded Box Office in 19xx".
That's definitely an improvement. I think the half after the semicolon is fine; the first half might perhaps be improved if you have the sources to be more specific about the nature of the transition: did Fox purchase Box Office? Merge with it? Take it over after bankruptcy? But it works perfectly well as it is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's an ... interesting question. Ask four sources, get five answers. Koszarski claims that William Fox "reorganized" Box Office into Fox Film. On the other hand, Langman says that Fox was incorporated separately and then "absorbed" its predecessor. Solomon discusses Fox Film's incorporation process in considerable detail, but glosses over how Box Office's fate was handled. Other others provide a variety of vague descriptions of the process, not all of which mean interchangeable things: that Box Office was "replaced" by, "renamed", or "became" Fox. In any case, both were privately held companies owned by the same guy, so the precise details were probably mostly of concern to the corporate lawyers. There certainly wasn't a bankruptcy or an explicit merger of the type that later created 20th Century Fox. I can categorically state that Fox Film was not created through the merger of Box Office and the Greater New York Film Rental Company, despite that being the explanation in many less-reliable sources; that misreading of the timeline apparently first appeared in Wikipedia all the way back in 2001 (although I've recently removed it from the relevant articles). I am ... open to suggestions about a preferred wording here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite some variation in the sources. In this article I don't think the reader needs the details if they're going to be complicated, so perhaps your current wording is fine. Alternatively, how about "Box Office Attractions ceased to exist in 1915; Fox Films, also owned by William Fox, inherited Box Office's assets, and continued to..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I went through my sources to see if there was any clearer chronology. No such luck. I've taken another stab at cleaning up this section of text. Hopefully it reads better now? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"was the much earlier": presumably this should be "was much the earlier".
OK -- my ENGVAR is mostly BrEng, but I've lived in the U.S. for decades, so I can't be sure which side of the Atlantic my ear for a phrase is on at any given time. But not an issue since cutting it works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't give the date of the original novel, which wouldn't hurt, and would actually be helpful to the reader when you say it was much later than Beulah.
"Nevertheless, the 1915 Beulah film was "considered a sequel" to St. Elmo.": See WP:INTEXT.
Reworded this to avoid the direct quotation, which wasn't necessary anyway, and added a contemporary source (that I was already using elsewhere, actually) alongside Jura and Bardin. Hope that helps, and thanks for taking a look! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First being the fact that AFI did cite Edwards, but they have sense switched back to Bracken as of this writing.Archived versionCurrent version Secondly, The Complete Index to Literary Sources in Film has been wrong a lot of the time for me. It is actually a compilation of other sources and one of the enduring errors traces back to "Theodore Marston" of whom has been wrongly attributed from Jane Eyre (1910 film) to Rip Van Winkle (1910 film) to The Vicar of Wakefield (1910 film). In this case, American Film-Index 1908-1915 was the source and it was addressed in the 1995 work by Bowers however Gobel's 1999 book (the one and the same) still have the errors. While I like the book... I am just not confident in it based on past experience... but the confusion needs to be cited and included. Though "Who's who in the film world" credits Bracken as well.[13]
The plot is too light... I could not find any official furnished synopsis in the major sources, but I found what seems to be a tailored review in a newspaper and clipped it for you.See here. This should help you expand the plot aspect or even cite the text for the lost film.
No interest in covering the release schedule or the persistence of the film? This would mostly be clippings and I know this is probably not as interesting or relevant to readers, but I see it advertised into 1916.
Also, I'll get my butt in gear and do the Vitagraph production and start on the company... just to resolve the red link issue. I wanted to hold off on Vitagraph for awhile...but I finished all of Thanhouser's 1910 releases so I can slack off for a bit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get some of this material integrated. I'd seen the scene count before, and had wrestled with whether to include it. It's not a metric that gets cited by period reviews for very many films, at least in the major periodicals, and I suspected it was more advertising copy than relevant information. On the other hand, I had not scene that film still of St. Elmo drinking with the Devil, which is amazing. And I hadn't noticed that, while I've been developing this article, AFI totally revamped their entry for the film, including swapping their directorial credit. Let me get the plot summary revamped with the new AFI material and that Trenton Evening Times article, take another stab at the director credit issue, and see where we're at with regard to the other topics. And, perhaps most importantly, thanks! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've made several changes in light of the additional sources and the major revision to the AFI listing:
I've completely reworked the plot summary based on the AFI's new content and the Trenton Evening Times (alongside the best of the sources I'd relied on previously). Naturally, no two of these agree on all the details, but I hope this is a more representative overview of the plot.
In light of AFI swapping directorial credit to Bracken, I've rewritten both the lead and the production section to give more weight to the idea that Bracken directed.
I've also added a little bit of Balboa's marketing copy. Modern film articles often include coverage of marketing campaigns, and this is probably the equivalent. Plus, since we've got the poster, we've got a reason to use Balboa's "194 glorious scenes". I went ahead and pointed out that the film was still running in 1916, too. That's not actually all that unusual for (successful) films in the state rights era, but it's certainly a contrast to what readers will know of modern film distribution. I opted to cite the Honolulu paper (from January) which actually had prose dedicated to the showing, rather than the latest pure advertisement I could find (from a much smaller market, several months later). There's no way we can declare when the last runs would have been, so I don't feel any real obligation to use a poorer-quality source just to eke out a later pub date.
Finally, I've reselected images, grabbing that great one of St. Elmo and the Devil from the San Bernadino County Sun and the film poster (which wasn't originally available when I started putting this together... that's what I get for not checking back, eh?). Sadly, I think the still in The Atlantic Constitution is too grainy and dark to be useful, which is unfortunate, since it's the film poster's scene. On the bright side, at least we've got all the content banned by those wacky Chicago censors!
That one's already in there (reference #2). I did fix an error with the author's name that had crept into the prose, I suspect from some overly ambitious spell-checking early on. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1866 eponymous novel. - worth redlinking "eponymous novel" to St. Elmo (novel) or Saint Elmo (novel) (whatever the correct title is). If it's been adapted to film five times, it almost certainly passes Wikipedia:Notability (books). Add that to the commercial success, and...
It is not entirely clear who directed the film - What does "entirely" add here? Also, would "It is disputed" work better?
publically - I believe "publicly" is the more standard spelling
Others consider the film the directorial debut of J. Gordon Edwards. - Do they cite any evidence for this?
This article is about Castell Coch, a quaint Gothic Revival castle to the north of Cardiff in south Wales, which was built by William Burges for John Crichton-Stuart, 3rd Marquess of Bute in the 1870s. A castle had existed on the site in medieval times but later fell into ruin. The interior design of the castle has been cited as one of the shining examples of the High Victorian Gothic, though Bute rarely used the place as a residence. For a period a vineyard was cultivated at the castle, unusual in Britain. Today it is run by the Welsh heritage agency Cadw.
Hchc2009 especially, and myself and KJP1 have extensively researched this and believe it is now comprehensive enough and of a high enough quality following the peer review to run as a viable candidate here. We hope you enjoy it and feel the same. This also has something of personal meaning, being born in Cardiff myself and knowing how this castle is beloved by many in south Wales and its importance to Welsh heritage. Thanks... ♦ Dr. Blofeld20:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
"Burges died in 1881 from a chill": What's a lethal chill?
I agree it does sound unlikely now and, for that reason, Curly Turkey queried it at peer review. I give Hchc2009's response below:
"In the 19th century, yes (death from a chill was possible); open or unheated carriages, the South Wales hills in mid-winter, no central heating, the extremely poor air quality from burning coal etc. made this sort of thing common in the Victorian period. Even my grandparents (thoroughly post-Victorian, I should add!) were absolutely insistent on members of the family dressing up warmly, wearing scarves and so on to prevent serious chills reaching the chest."
Well ... the germ theory of disease wasn't broadly accepted until the late 1800s, so contemporary sources probably listed the cause of death as miasma or something similar. You'll pardon me if I'm sceptical. The main problem for me isn't a factual problem, it's a readability problem ... that is, will a reader quickly and naturally settle on a meaning for the words "died in 1881 from a chill"? I think they'll probably fumble around trying to work it out. Perhaps: "died in 1881 after a site visit to the draughty, chilly castle" or (if the sources support this) "died in 1881 from a fever contracted after a site visit to the draughty, chilly castle" - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should stick to the cited source, which states that he died of a chill, rather than elaborating our own opinions (right or wrong!) which would feel like OR. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC) - NB: we could potentially links to chills? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of my suggestions were OR, because I said "if the sources support this". If you have good reason to believe that the sources meant "fever" when they said "chill", then I think "fever" is less ambiguous for 21st-century readers. If you don't know if the sources meant "fever", then I'm wondering what the sources meant. - Dank (push to talk) 22:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've now gone back as closely in the text as I can; I think to go further we're either going to have to a) find a modern source which speculates on what he actually had (e.g. was it really pneumonia, a chest infection, influenza, or cholera, etc.); b) caveat it as "...described at the time as..." to make it clear this is a 19th-century description; or potentially c) add in a footnote saying something like "In 19th-century Britain, the term "a chill" was used to refer to a variety of medical conditions in which a patient appeared to shiver and suffered a drop in temperature, including..." and find a source for it (which I think could be done). Hchc2009 (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was also going to suggest a footnote. Crook quotes from the Abstract of Burges's diaries as follows; "had a long ride in a dog cart and got very cold." Crook goes on to say, following Burges's return to the Tower House; "There he lingered, half paralysed, for three weeks." (Crook, 2013, p=341) Could that be the basis for a footnote explaining that, in Victorian times, "chill" was a portmanteau term for a variety of, not fully-understood, conditions? KJP1 (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd want us to find a more specific source for our statement on the portmanteau aspect, but I'm sure we could find one - there have to be plenty of works on Victorian medical thought we could find. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Proved slightly harder than I'd expected, but I've found a reliable source that discusses the changes in pathology etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have liked to work in The Importance of being Earnest where Ernest is "carried off suddenly, in Paris, by a severe chill" but I think this works very well. KJP1 (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"the original finishings. ... The original furnishings ...": a little jarring
The praise in Overview is a little bit repetitive.
I've addressed this by removing the McLees and Crook quotes, both of which appear the lede. But others may want to revisit/re-word this. KJP1 (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many readers won't recognize "x" as a plural ending, so I went with "châteaus".
"Burges noting at the time": Just noting that I don't take a position on so-called "absolute constructions" or WP:PLUSING, though some do, strenuously. I did change one of them.
I should add that the only quibble I have is on the section names. To my mind "11–14th centuries" and "20–21st centuries" looks odd. I would have thought that "11th–14th centuries" and "20th–21st centuries" would be more correct, but I can't find anything in the MoS to clarify which it is. - SchroCat (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done - by amendment in line with your suggestion. I had a look at Windsor Castle and, although it's not an exact parallel, it does have a section headed "11th and 12th century". Others may want to review. KJP1 (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, KJP1. Others will probably know better, but unfortunately the MoS doesn't give us any clarity on this point. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I reviewed this at PR, but it was already nicely polished before I got there. Everything looks absolutely fine to me; it's a well-written article on a very interesting subject.-RHM22 (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, leaning to support. An impressive article and a nice companion to The Tower House which I read not long ago. I missed the peer review of this one, so have a few points for consideration, but I suspect that these will not prove problematic:
Lead
The statement "Castell Coch's external features and the lavish, High Victorian interiors make it one of the finest works of its period" is too opinionated unless attributed. Otherwise needs moderating.
It seems to me that some of the images in this section are out of kilter with the text. For example, Ibbetson's painting clearly belongs in the 15–19thc subsection, and Burges's drawings would fit better in the Reconstruction subsection. One way of dealing with this without causing too much image congestion would be to absorb the contents of the "This concludes..." quote box (or a prècis of it) into the text. Then move Ibbetson to the 15–19th, the drawings to the Reconconstruction subsection with the photograph. Worth considering, I believe.
"Robert Drane recommended the site as a place for picnics, and abundant in wild garlic". Slightly iffy grammar here; perhaps "Robert Drane recommended the site as a place for picnics, and noted its abundance in wild garlic".
A little too much detail in the fourth paragraph of the "Reconstruction" section concerning Bute's wine-making? In any event the four separate refs for the final sentence looks like over-citation.
I'll leave this one to Hchc2009. I tend to agree that perhaps the answer is less detail here and a separate article on the Castell Coch vineyard. I think there is more than enough material. KJP1 (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The word "inherited" is a bit over-used to describe the transfer of the castle between generations. It's not a word for which synonyms easily suggest themselves, but you could possibly use "took over" or "acquired" one one or more occasion.
"The property is now administered..." needs date specificity. Also, giving the visitor figures for 2011, four years ago, already makes the article seem dated. Do we need a precise figure and year – wouldn't a general mention of "around 70,000 a year" do just as well?
The figures vary over time before then, so I think it would be OR to generalise and predict the last four years. I haven't been able to find a more recent figure unfortunately. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retaining a 2011 visitors' figure is going to look increasingly arbitrary and dated as time goes by. If you don't have source information which enables you to generalise about annual visitor numbers, then you should omit the figure. Brianboulton (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it requires removal/action... The figures for 2012-14 haven't been published online yet (that we've found), but a gap of 36 months doesn't force us to delete the latest figures we do have. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However, retaining a 2011 visitors' figure is going to look increasingly arbitrary and dated as time goes by. It's already four years old. If you don't have source information which enables you to generalise about annual visitor numbers, then you should omit the figure. Brianboulton (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should be deleting information because it hasn't been updated on-line in 36 months (it isn't actually four years old, as we won't have the 2015 figures until the start of 2016 at the earliest, for obvious reasons!). We wouldn't, for example, be deleting previous census data for towns on that basis etc. If it became seriously dated, fair enough, but 36 months isn't really that long, in my opinion. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll continue to look for a more up-to-date set of figures. I found a 2014 publication but this only gave global CADW figures, not those for individual sites. KJP1 (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The interior decoration remains in good condition, although the exposed building suffers from penetrating damp and has required restoration work" is another sentence that needs to be date-specific.
Have sought to give the renovations chronological flow. Have lost the reference to Lord B's bed in the process but I don't think this is critical. KJP1 (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Architecture
I'm slightly confused by the statement in the text that the Keep and the Kitchen Tower have the same diameter; this is far from evident in the diagram. And later, the lengthways dimension of the courtyard is given as 64ft, yet from the plan the yard seems to be about three times the width of the keep (39ft).
I've just done a quick measurement by paper and screen on those two towers (NB: non-scientific) - they do seem to be the same diameter on the plan as well, as far as I can see, as per the cited source. Similarly on measuring the courtyard by paper and screen, the courtyard does look to be about 60-something ft across on the plan, as per the cited source. I can fish out the original hardcopy Ministry image and check on that with a ruler (slightly more scientific!) if you're still worried though. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we were measuring on different bases – I was only considering the "white" parts, i.e. not the thickness of the walls. So your figures are fine – no further action necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"...similar to some of the towers built at contemporary Caerphilly" – can you clarify to what this refers?
I think it means that the flat, as opposed to curved, back (interior) side of the Well Tower matches similar, flat backs to towers at Caerphilly. But it is really HCs area. Re-reading it, I also wonder whether the reference to "contemporary Caerphilly" is a bit problematic. Contemporary to the original castle, indeed, but not to the castle that Burges built. Although the Marquess did undertake restoration work at Caerphilly. KJP1 (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really grateful for your working on improving the article and for your support. Shall continue to look for some more recent visitor numbers. KJP1 (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Another peer reviewer checking in. I was happy then and am happy now. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. The article faithfully captures the mesmeric god-awfulness of Burges's work, and I second Brian B's compliment above to the trio of editors who have brought the page up to this fine quality. – Tim riley talk15:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Castell_Coch_-_allegorical_wallpaper.jpg: since this is a reproduction of a 2D work, the photographer does not have a copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, I'm the uploader, not the photographer! The tag notes that it is PD in the US and, while I know the Wiki line on reproductions of 2D art makes it strictly unnecessary in terms of US hosting rules, it is useful for us Brits to know that we can safely use it in the UK as well as the US, as the photographer has tagged it with a UK compliant CC label. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SCHOLARSHIP allows for the use of completed PhDs from reliable institutions. The Welsh School of Architecture at Cardiff University is a specialist institution for the study of (unsurprisingly!) Welsh architecture, so pertinent for Castell Coch, and was ranked in the top 5 in the UK for its research work on architecture in 2008; in 2013 it reached number 2 in the league tables in the UK. The claims being cited aren't exceptional in character. The source therefore meets the WP:SCHOLARSHIP standards. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Enthiran, the current highest grossing Tamil film of all time. It is also the first Rajinikanth film to be attempted for FA class. It was withdrawn by me in its first FAC due to WP:PUNC, MOS:LQ and WP:NBSP issues. The editors who cited these issues have accepted the article's return to FAC after the issues were resolved at the article's second peer review. Any comments regarding prose, copyediting or even punctuation (if any are found) are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2Speak 2 me 02:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC); Kailash29792 (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe this is now up to scratch, it's not easy writing about a contemporary Tamil film like this and making it sound encyclopedic. I have made some significant edits to it myself though delegates.♦ Dr. Blofeld07:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not a subject I know anything about, but the text is remarkably thorough, and the prose is easy to read and well and widely sourced. Many of the sources are newspapers, but that is to be expected for a film released less than five years ago. Adverse as well as favourable reviews are quoted. Only two minor queries about the drafting:
Lead: I don’t think you want to hyphenate "of all-time".
is "sci – fi" (twice) what you want, rather than "sci-fi", which is how I write the word, as – rather more to the point – does the Oxford English Dictionary?
I have not compared the version now before us with the one submitted and withdrawn last month. I refrained from supporting then because I felt unqualified to make any judgment about the topic. I am no better qualified now, but the article carries conviction, and as long as the coordinators realise that my support comes from a position of flawless ignorance I am happy to add it. The opinions of better-informed editors will naturally carry more weight. – Tim riley talk12:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Following the completion of his first directorial venture in Hindi, Nayak (2001), S. Shankar announced his next project, Robot, which was to feature Kamal Haasan and Preity Zinta" - was Robot the working titie?
Yes, it was. It was the official title at that time. Coincidentally, Enthiran was released in Hindi (dubbed version) as Robot. The film would still have been named Robot for the Tamil version, but to get tax exemption from the Tamil Nadu State Government, the title of the Tamil version was changed to Enthiran. — Ssven2Speak 2 me12:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, is there an English dub? If so could it be mentioned in the Release section?
No English dubbing. If there was, it would have been mentioned in the tabloids, which I would have cited along with the information here. But it was released with subtitles though. I have added the information in the "Cast and crew" sub-section as the one who does the captioning is also technically considered a crew member. — Ssven2Speak 2 me12:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great job on the article, I'd just thought I would mention the minor comments above but you don't have to address them. Good luck! ☠Jaguar☠11:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Looks good. A job well done by all involved. Just one minor point: If Aishwarya Rai Bachchan practised her Tamil lines each day before filming, why was her voice dubbed by another artist? --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why, but this source says, "Apparently, Aishwarya will also be dubbing her own lines for another Tamil film, Shankar's Endhiran, co-starring Rajnikanth", which is contradicted by this source that we have used. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I say we stick to the Business Standard-IANS one as that was published in 2013, 3 years after the film's release. The TOI source is published 6 months before its release and it states, "Apparently,..." which means it's not confirmed. Maybe she just got the lip-syncing correct. The voice in the film was a bit feminine, Ash has a more masculine voice, don't you think? — Ssven2Speak 2 me06:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an expert at this, and I have only seen the Hindi version of the film, in which Rai dubbed for herself. If you think the Business Standard article is more reliable, then use it. My concern is that we shouldn't put up contradictory information, unless we put up a note explaining it. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Krimuk90: I have removed the rehearsal bit to avoid confusion. Maybe the news from TOI might be for her Hindi dubbing as things were not confirmed at April 2010 right? — Ssven2Speak 2 me06:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The TOI source talks about her dubbing in Tamil for Mani's film. The Enthiran bit must have been added as a possible afterthought. The statement isn't attributed to any source, so it's alright to not include it. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exchange rates aren't the same during the whole year.
@Skr15081997: The exchange rates are average values. I have added average exchange rates for all years except this year, which I have written as "The exchange rate on 4 February 2015...". — Ssven2Speak 2 me09:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you could have a look at WP:CITEBUNDLE and see if you could do anything about those parts where there are too many citations? ("and paid INR60 million.[24][25][26][27][Note 2]" sticks out, by way of example. - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: Thanks for this. I have made a few modifications and as it turns out, the citation bundles are more or less present in the "Cast and crew" section. Partially done for now. Will be back to address this tomorrow afternoon. To make things easier, can you show me an exmple of how to solve the places where too many citations are present? ust one example would be enough. — Ssven2Speak 2 me14:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Was just wondering if you could tweak one of the sentences at the Awards section as most of the sentences start with "at the xxx ceremony, the film.." -- FrankBoyCHITCHAT14:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I performed an earlier copyedit, and I commented at the first FAC and the peer review. I went over the article again and corrected a few things, and it looks good to me now. I like it; good work.-RHM22 (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For "Awards and nominations", it's worth including Edison Awards and Screen Awards even though there's a separate article for all accolades. Since the section is a bit short right now, I'd also add some of the names of works that won the nominations this film lost.
The title suggests this is a multi-volume encyclopedia - sometimes these have separate authors on individual entries, which should be noted, and the volume number should also be given. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about one of the most significant Arabian horse breeders in modern times, and an individual who also had a fascinating early career as a newspaper publisher in the heart of the McCarthy era of the 1950s. The article is GA-class and since that time has had a peer review by User:Wehwalt, who made many good suggestions. I welcome further comment and assessment. Montanabw(talk)08:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether you include location, retrieval date and publisher for periodicals, and if so how these are formatted (COMMENT)
If you tell me what formatting you're going for I can tell you which don't match - FN2 is different from FN17 is different from FN18 is different from FN28 is different from FN14... Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed some, but other of these periodicals were accessed from two different web sites, notably the Arizona Daily Star ones... Legacy.com preserves Obituaries even if they are dumped from the newspaper's web site. (I just found that out with my own father, the paper will dump the obit, but Legacy.com will keep it for $80. My father-in-laws vanished because of that ...sheesh...) I made everything "cite web" so it all looks the same - some cites people have argued should be "cite news" - it's a pain because I got them all off the web, but... Montanabw(talk)07:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but within cite web there are several potentially correct formatting options, and I still can't tell which you're going for - FN2 has location and website, FN8 has neither, FN15 has location only, FN18 is missing italics (this one is not correct), FN22 has just publication name but uses a different name from FN2, FN28 has publication name and website name... Having just publication name is most common by a narrow margin, is that what you would like to use? You can still flag Legacy.com refs within that. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, simple is best, if complete and adequate for FAC. I suspect that the switchover of reflinks can account for some discrepancies, I let the machine do some, while others were created by humans. I think some of the others came from requests during the GAN, but I can't recall. I am not particularly attached to any one format (which is kind of obvious) I guess, just what works. I've tried to resolve the inconsistencies you flagged by removing location and publisher where not really relevant, let me know if there are more or if they are un-fixed. I don't know what to do with the Legacy.com one, it was published in the Daily Star but only exists now at Legacy... your call there, I guess. Montanabw(talk)22:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't need retrieval dates for GBooks (COMMENT)
It's not a matter of it going online or off - retrieval date is useful for finding old or archived copies, which isn't possible in this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may need to flag where you see inconsistencies, they seemed all consistent to me, but I clearly must have missed something. I respectfully disagree on access date on GBooks, I've seen them go on and offline, but if it's a dealbreaker, I'll toss. Anything other than the Associated Press need the "agency" parameter -- ? I don't think there are uncited sources now, save for Bazy's book she had Parkinson ghostwrite, which I think we need to include in some fashion... Montanabw(talk)07:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NIkkimaria:: I think I got all the deadlinks and your other fixes, let me know what I've missed. I redirected the three deadlinks to Wayback, but the cite checker is still flagging them, don't know what's up with that. Montanabw(talk)07:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)\[reply]
It's flagging them because you've got the links backwards: where it says "archived from the original", "the original" should be the original link (ie the one that's dead), but you've got it set up to be the archived link. If you're using the archive-url parameter, that should be the live archive link, and correspondingly url should be the dead link. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some periodicals are still including publishers - FN4, 11, 30, 31, 33, 47
OK FIXED, but I really fail to see why this matters; more obscure periodicals benefit from its inclusion, better-known ones do not, but if you insist that everything has to be exactly the same, please defend that position when the next reviewer tells me to put them all back. Montanabw(talk)05:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know absolutely nothing about the subject. Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or to disagree with any of my comments, many of which have no bearing on whether I'll support.
You refer to her both as Tankersley or as Bazy. It's best to stick with one—usually the surname, although I can see the confusion that would cause when talking about her second husband.
I tried to use "Tankersley" almost throughout, but there were a couple spots where it seemed clunky, particularly before her second marriage. Feel free to flag for me the spots where you think I need to swap out names, or you are welcome to tweak those yourself if you wish; indeed, the only spot it's critical is probably where we are discussing both Tankersleys! Montanabw(talk)00:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very hairsplitting, but I might drop some of those middle names & initials in the lead
I dropped a couple, was just being too lazy to do a piped link, her father and mother, though, their middle names mean much - dynasties and all... Montanabw(talk)00:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tankersley returned to Tucson in the 1970s. In addition to horse breeding, she created an apprenticeship program at Al-Marah to train young people for jobs in the horse industry.: Is this supposed to imply these things happened in Tuscon?
who moved the Al-Marah Arabian farm name: what does it mean to move the farm name?
Usually farm names are attached to the land they are on, "Sunnybrook farm", "Pine tree acres" - it's interesting that she moved her "verdant oasis" name from the desert to the (not-desert) midwest, to the (very-not-desert) east coast and then back to the desert west. Can I clarify that somehow?? Montanabw(talk)00:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tankersley was described as having "inherited a love of politics and horses, not necessarily in that order.": needs attribution
The source is cited at the end of the sentence. It was the author of the source, Richard Norton Smith, p. 461. I really hate saying "according to foo" statements when I can avoid them. I suppose that's a style issue, but I feel like using it for people who aren't particularly important themselves is an Argument from authority that can lead to someone saying, "so why is foo an expert" and so on... I mean, if it's a "drop dead or no support" I can put in Smith, but... (whining) Montanabw(talk)00:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
believed to be partly attributed: would the intended sense somehow change if "believed to be" were dropped?
Hmm. You are right, it's awkward. Basically, there isn't a direct known reason, and there may have been multiple reasons, hence the weaseling... Open to ideas for rephrasing! Montanabw(talk)00:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Senator from Illinois ... congressman from New Mexico: I get the feeling these should be "for" rather than "from"—the "from" seems to me to indicate their place of origin, rather than the place they represent (which may not be the same place)
They are "from" these states. Both "for" and "from" forms are used. Sometimes "of" can work. I did change one "from" to "for" with the senator, as senators represent the entire state, but kept "from" for the Representatives, as the House districts change boundaries every ten years, so saying "for District foo" could be even more confusing. Is that OK? Montanabw(talk)00:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In 2004, she was awarded an honorary doctorate in Humane Letters from the University of Arizona.; He served as a director of the Tribune Company from 1973 to 1981.: Do you really want these things out of chronological order?
Nothing wrong with it, but in the sentence on her second marriage (1) she gets divorced (2) her secod husband works for the Tribune in the 1970s (3) then she meets her second husband for the first time (4) then the events rejoin the chronology.
It's OK, it wasn't working very well anyway! 05:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
given McCormick's own complicated personal life: which we're not actually given—or have I missed it?
His personal life was "complicated," I don't want to bog the article down in it... two marriages, other extramarital affairs, etc. the source quotes Bazy saying "...But I was upset he took such a stand against my remarrying. I felt it was hypocritical since two women had gotten divorces to marry him." Montanabw(talk)00:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Noting her earlier strong affiliation with the Republican party and conservative politics, The Washington Post reported that in 2008 she voted for Barack Obama. She also supported Democratic Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords.: this jumps out decades before the fact
At the time of her death, she had six grandchildren and two great-grandchildren.: why mention this here, and not at the time of her death?
Seemed to fit with her children to mention grandkids in the same place; grandkids can keep on increasing, so best to note when the number was pegged... Montanabw(talk)00:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"doted" on Bazy: are these scare quotes or an actual quotation? They look like the former
"simple decency and honesty" and "a shocking abuse of the spirit and intent of the First Amendment of the Constitution.": are these quotes by the Senate?
Yup. Source states " ... a bipartisan Senate panel later condemned her hit piece as a violation of "simple decency and honesty" and "a shocking abuse of the spirit and intent of the First Amendment of the Constitution." " Montanabw(talk)00:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The two men had even been in a physical altercation.: was this before or during the events? If the latter, the past perfect should be dropped.
I clarified a bit: McCarthy kicked Pearson in the "groin" at a party in December 1950, that was another count in the 1951 lawsuit, but not relevant to Bazy... Montanabw(talk)00:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"probably the world's most prolific Arabian horse breeder.": attribution or paraphrasing needed
Another "Foo said" issue, but I'd be open to a rephrase, except I've stared at the article so long that I really can't think of a way to paraphrase without getting smacked for close-paraphrasing, but am open to a way to rephrase? Montanabw(talk)00:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes "Double R" is quoted and sometimes not. Are the quotes necessary?
Not sure, what do you prefer? I can go either way. It was her own concept, "Double R" can have other meanings - ranch brands, etc. I guess I lean toward keeping because it's an odd usage. Montanabw(talk)00:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tankersley died on February 5, 2013. She had Parkinson's disease.: Was Parkinson's the cause of death?
When I put it up for FAC, I think the lead originally read " Her death in 2013 was attributed to Parkinson's disease." Someone wanted me to rephrase that. Suggestions? Montanabw(talk)00:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"If she was in any position of leadership or power, she was dominant.": needs attribution
You are the second person to raise this particular one, so maybe I should attribute here, but not sure how to be graceful and concise. The quote in context is ""If she served on a board, you never got the feeling that democracy would enter the room," says Herman Bleibtreu, another friend and retired dean of the University of Arizona College of Liberal Arts. "If she was in any position of leadership or power, she was dominant." So... I really don't want to give Bliebtreu's whole resume, but he's also not a famous person, so...how do you suggest I proceed? Montanabw(talk)00:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
others earned multiple national championships over the course of her career: meaning each of them won more than once? Otherwise, the plural "championships" is sufficient and "multiple" is redundant
I see lots of hidden comments about stuff to add. I have no idea how important any of it is.
Three comments, two are "notes to self" for stuff I've been digging for more info and not finding, the third on the AHOF, probably not necessary. Want me to toss? Montanabw(talk)00:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some reason you haven't used And Ride Away Singing: the Breeding Philosophy of Bazy Tankersley and the History of Al-Marah Arabians?
Heh, heh, because it's over $200.00 and only available from two libraries in the country [19]! I've thought about it, but haven't checked to see if they'd even consider an Interlibrary loan... and knowing Mary Jane Parkinson's work, it is apt to be heavy on discussions of bloodlines and individual horses, which is horse geek heroin to someone like me, but not necessarily to the casual reader... ;-) Montanabw(talk)05:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thorough review and the helpful copyedits @Curly Turkey:! I have answered your points above, and am glad to try and fix these issues. We may have a difference of opinon on the in-text attribution issue, but we can reach an agreement we both can live with, I'm sure, everything IS cited. Montanabw(talk)00:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sections you stated as needing attribution, here's how they now shake out:
"inherited a love of politics and horses..." is the phrasing of the author of the work cited, I'd prefer to leave it as is.
I think the two Person lawsuit quotes now clarify who said what. Better?
"probably the world's most prolific Arabian horse breeder" : Redone, added source. Better? (I can toss that snippet if it's a problem)
"...If she was in any position of leadership or power, she was dominant." This is the trickiest one: I really don't know what to do here, they are quoting a colleague of hers, but he's not particularly famous in his own right; at least not in this context - he was just someone who knew her. I don't want to provoke a [according to whom?] tag by being vague, but the full attribution in HCN is kind of clunky here.
You raise an interesting question and it's not being a hardass - FAC is for these tough questions! I read INTEXT to be a description of how and when one "should" do it, not a drop-dead "must do it" mandate (an inline footnote however, IS a drop-dead mandate)! ; but then, I haven't perused the talk or drama boards to see if there has been consensus debated on its meaning... Montanabw(talk)04:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But philosophical musing aside, I now have three of the four with an in-text attribution as well as a footnote: I did note Pearson for number two already, found two differenc tsources for #3 and reworded it, and as I looked over INTEXT and then WP:NPOV, I will acknowledge that the Bliebtreu quote (#4) is a strong statement that could be called "biased" and so it probably does fall under WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Are those three now copacetic? Montanabw(talk)04:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only question left is the Smith quote, which I really don't think needs in-text attribution given that there is a footnote immediately following. (per INLINE, I think it falls under "It is best not to clutter articles with information best left to the references. Interested readers can click on the ref..." ) To say, "Tankersley was described by Richard Norton Smith, who was the biographer of Robert R. McCormick, as having "inherited a love of politics and horses, not necessarily in that order." blech, that's yucky writing. Horrible way to start the first paragraph of a section, I'd smack myself silly for writing that dull! LOL!!! Now, if this is a drop dead oppose if I don't fix it, I am open to suggested wording that won't put the reader to sleep. But if it isn't a drop-dead, I'd really prefer not to! :-) Montanabw(talk)04:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(I had to look up "copacetic"). Well, I could argue that the way around yucky writing is to rewrite the yuck out of it, but whatever, I'll buy your argument (if it were me, I might make a blockquote or something out of it, which would handle the attribution neatly). Okay, I'm going throw my support behind this article now. Curly Turkey¡gobble!05:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This sequence is odd: Tankersley moved to Southwest with her mother and stepfather.[10] She spent part of her childhood on her mother's Rock River dairy farm in Byron, Illinois, then at a ranch owned by Simms in Albuquerque, New Mexico ... I wouldn't consider Illinois remotely to be a SW state. Possibly reverse the Illinois section and the moved to the Southwest?
250,000 acres (100,000 ha) property ...acres is being used as an adjective not a noun. In the same sense that a 15-foot tree is a foot as opposed to the tree was 15 feet tall. It is either a property of 250,000 acres where the number is describing the noun acres, or a 250,000 acre property where both the number and acre are describing the property.
He was ten years older than was she ... I looked this up here [20] as it sounded awkward. I'm buying that it is a conjunction rather than a preposition but I think the verb and pronoun order should be reversed. He was ten years older than she was.
but her uncle considered Garvin Tankersley, who was from a poor Lynchburg, Virginia family, to be of unsuitable social status for Bazy,[11] and he also disapproved of her divorce. ... Sounds as if Tankersley disapproved of her divorce, as he is the last "he" mentioned. Flow would be better her uncle disapproved of her divorce and he considered ...
a 110 acres (45 ha) facility ... same issue as above 110-acre is an adjective for the noun facility.
This paragraph: Tankersley was not the only member of the McCormick family to raise Arabians in Arizona. ... while containing interesting information, does not lend to a greater knowledge of Tankersley or her horse blood lines. May want to delete it as a "side" discussion? SusunW (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff to catch! I will fix, check diffs in a few hours and see if I got them. The "acres" problem is with the convert template, they actually have a parameter to fix that. (wow!) I don't know quite how to handle dear cousin Fifi; she was a very big deal in her time, but I can't connect the dots between her and Bazy, though they clearly associated. I was hoping to see if one influenced the other, but am having no luck. Moved Fifi to a sandbox. Montanabw(talk)07:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support which I apparently failed to say before. Looks like you got them to me. Really nice piece of an important historical woman. SusunW (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"she was raised amongst powerful Republican political figures. She was the daughter of Senator Joseph Medill McCormick. Her mother was progressive Republican Ruth Hanna McCormick, who served in the United States House of Representatives, making Tankersley a granddaughter of the late Senator Mark Hanna of Ohio. Although Tankersley was involved with conservative Republican causes as a young woman, including a friendship with Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, her progressive roots reemerged in later years; by the 21st century, she had become a strong supporter of environmental causes and backed Barack Obama for president in 2008. She became a patron of many charities. Her death in 2013 was attributed to Parkinson's disease." -seems very long for what you're trying to say here. Can you find a way to trim a bit? In the lead all I think you need to say is "Born to Republican parents, the daughter of a Senator" sort of thing or at least shorten it. Also I'd move mention of her death to the end of where you say "Upon her death" and add "from Parkinson's disease in 2013".
Hm. I tightened, see if you like it better now, I rearranged some things, you are right about the death bit; but her family tree is a big part of why she's notable beyond being a horse breeder - massive political and newspaper empire, ask @Wehwalt: about this, perhaps. Montanabw(talk)08:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"As a young woman, she had a journalism career, beginning at age 18 as a reporter for a newspaper published by her mother. " -shorten to At the age of 18, she began working as a reporter for a newspaper published by her mother. I think that should tell the reader it was journalism and that she was a young woman!
" By 1957, Al-Marah was the largest Arabian farm in the United States. " -no article given its notability?
Confused by this question? I can double check that Edwards is the source for that, Google Books doesn't have text online, but User:Ealdgyth has a copy of it (I think) if you need independent verification. Montanabw(talk)07:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"When Tankersley was four, her father died. His death was a suicide,[8] believed to be in part linked to his defeat for renomination in 1924" -shorten to "When Tankersley was four, her committed suicide, believed to be partly attributed to his defeat for renomination in 1924".
"Tankersley spent part of her childhood on her mother's Rock River dairy farm in Byron, Illinois,[7] but later moved to the Southwest with her mother and stepfather,[10] living at a ranch owned by Simms in Albuquerque, New Mexico and then on the Trinchera Ranch, a 250,000-acre (100,000 ha) property in Colorado that her mother purchased in 1937.[" -this is rather long. I'd put a new sentence in after stepfather then "They lived at a ranch.."
"Tankersley did not complete high school.[2] "I virtually had no education," she later stated." -would be better in one sentence like "Tankersley did not complete high school, and professed to have had "virtually had no education".
Rephrased, not sure if saying "claimed" works, but given the totality of the circumstances (she went to college, she studied genetics), it seems apt. Thoughts? Montanabw(talk)08:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Her first marriage ended in 1951, when Tankersley divorced Miller to marry Garvin E. "Tank" Tankersley, an editor at the Washington Times-Herald.[8] He was ten years older than she was". =Her first marriage ended in 1951, when Tankersley divorced Miller to marry Garvin E. "Tank" Tankersley, an editor at the Washington Times-Herald who was ten years her senior.
"Tankersley also dabbled in campaign politics, in 1948 organizing "Twenties for Taft" clubs to support the 1948 Presidential campaign of Robert A. Taft,[8] following in the footsteps of her mother Ruth, who was the first woman to manage a presidential campaign, the 1940 and 1944 efforts of Thomas E. Dewey.[" -long again. I'd put in a full stop after campaign politics. In 1948 she organized...
You mean wikilinks? Do you mean in the refs or in body text? I can do for those that have articles - not all do. Should I do some (i.e. Washington Post but not others? Glad to fix this, please adviseMontanabw(talk)07:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The Times-Herald, described as "isolationist and archconservative,"[23] was known for sensationalism.[8] McCormick wanted Bazy to use the paper to create "an outpost of American principles."[24]" -seems sporadic on its own here. I'd squeeze it in after "Her uncle, "Colonel" Robert R. McCormick, then appointed her as the publisher of the family-owned Washington Times-Herald in 1949." and refactor. Something like In 1949, he uncle, "Colonel" Robert R. McCormick, appointed her as the publisher of the family-owned Washington Times-Herald, an "isolationist and archconservative" paper, known for sensationalism. McCormick wanted Bazy to use the paper to create "an outpost of American principles."
"The two men had even been in a physical altercation." -where and by whom? Is this reliable?
Richard Norton Smith, p. 505 and several other sources. I didn't want to go on and on about it to bog down the article that is not about either of them, but quite the tale: see p. 505. Here is a more complete account (!) Montanabw(talk)07:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"She founded the Al-Marah Arabian Horse Farm when she first lived in Tucson, in 1941.[28] Tankersley stated that Al-Marah was Arabic for "a verdant garden oasis";[11] Mark Miller said the name was selected by Carl Raswan.[30] The original Tucson property was 40 acres (16 ha). " -some short snappy bits here which jar and affect flow. Try "She founded the 40 acre (16 ha) Al-Marah Arabian Horse Farm when she first lived in Tucson, in 1941. Mark Miller stated that the name Al-Marah was selected by Carl Raswan, which is Arabic for "a verdant garden oasis".
I like most changes and did some rewording, but I have to be careful with acreage, as she bought and sold parcels, so it kept changing (this is common with US land, especially in the west where there are few historic properties, people start with a small parcel, then buy out neighbors as they move or age, etc... We also aren't certain Al-Marah really means a verdant oasis - only that Raswan claimed it did. (Raswan did speak Arabic, but still) Montanabw(talk)08:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"gives rise to the assertion that the Al-Marah herd is the "oldest continuously-bred, privately-owned band of Arabians in the world."" -who asserts it?
"She owned him outright by 1959.[37][39] She later added another Rissalix son from Hanstead, *Ranix.[37] In 1962, she imported another Crabbet-bred stallion, *Silver Vanity.[40] She used her knowledge of genetics to institute a program of selectively inbreeding horses of bloodlines she considered of excellent quality.[41] In her early years, she" -five sentences with "she".
"2006 National Champion " -no link to whatever related article?
"who moved the Al-Marah Arabian farm name" -I'm not sure you can move the name unless it was on wiki ;-) moved location and changed the name?
Suggested rephrase ?- when she moved, she kept the same farm name wherever it was - not common for farms... usually they stick to one geographic location! Montanabw(talk)07:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"She was also noted for a strong personality: "If she was in any position of leadership or power, she was dominant."[24]" -rep of "she". Also not clear who the second quote is from. I'd change the whole initial paragraph to Tankerley was noted for her strong personality, dominating in positions of leadership or power. She once stated, "You see, I come from that old-fashioned background of noblesse oblige: If you're born with money, you have an obligation to do good works for others."
Heh, I suspect everyone who knew her! The quote is attributed to an individual of no particular notability, in context, it says "To some, she came across as autocratic... Even in later years, "If she served on a board, you never got the feeling that democracy would enter the room," says Herman Bleibtreu, another friend and retired dean of the University of Arizona College of Liberal Arts. "If she was in any position of leadership or power, she was dominant." Montanabw(talk)08:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Tankersley's politics shifted dramatically during her career. Noting her earlier strong affiliation with the Republican party and conservative politics, The Washington Post reported that in 2008 she voted for Barack Obama.[8] She also supported Democratic Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords.[24]" -not sure why this belongs in legacy. Belongs in background, I'd name the first section of the article "Background and personal life or something.
Let me think on that one. The problem is that the article goes in a chronological format, mostly, so her later environmental stuff was more of her planning for the future, and the Obama vote an example. But let's discuss, I'm not wedded to the current placement... just don't want to make it more awkward. Montanabw(talk)07:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, changed Background section name, in Legacy section I flipped the order in the paragraph, consolidated paragraphs and tightened. My thinking here is that I wanted to highlight stuff she did that has continued after her death (the schools, the land preservation, etc...) that's why it's a legacy. I did move the politics up to a spot in the background section. Montanabw(talk)08:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Most likely due to her love of Arizona, " -sounds like OR, did the author assume that? If so attribute who thought that.
Again I'm not sure why most of "Tankersley was a consistent advocate of the Arabian breed as a performance horse. In addition to the show ring and endurance riding, where she sometimes rode her own horses, she also tested her horses on the race track.[39] Her horses won the Tevis Cup once[31] and earned multiple national championships over the course of her career.[4] She was a major promoter of the Arabian Horse Association (AHA) Sport Horse Nationals, and her own horses also acquired many championships at that competition.[4] Further supporting Tankersley's interest in sport horse disciplines, two of her horses, Al Marah Xanthium, and Al-Marah Quebec, were the first Arabians accepted into the American Trakehner Registry.[3" belongs in legacy. If horses won cups they should be mentioned in horseracing career and documented there.
Not sure when they were accepted, might have been after Miller got them, he's pushing the Dressage stuff even more than his mom did. However, you raise an interesting question about article structure that I will think about; will be back once I've fixed the easy stuff and had time to digest the other things. Montanabw(talk)07:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"During the 2010 World Equestrian Games, the foundation sponsored the exhibit "Gift of the Desert: The Art, History and Culture of the Arabian Horse."" -and how exactly was this related directly to Tankersley?
Inconsistencies in date formatting. Ref 20 is January 1, 1945., most of the others digits. I prefer to write the dates as either 1 January 1945 or January 1, 1945, looks more professional IMO, but should be consistent either way.
Actually all the dates are written out, all the "accessdate" parameters digits. The inconsistent format of the ref, I think I fixed that. If you really want me to have date and accessdate identical (I think the deal was that I used reflinks a ton to fill in refs) I CAN change all of them, but do I really have to? (whining)
It is a now-defunct magazine, but was run by R.J. Cadranell, who was a respected bloodstock researcher (examples:compiled indexes, back issues for sale, included in anthologies) A history bit is online here. On the contributors' list is Michael Bowling, a researcher and noted expert on the Crabbet lines in Arabians, (examples: [25], [26] and his late wife, Anne Bowling was a well-known equine geneticist at the vet school at UC Davis: [27], [28] . So a very reliable source, IMHO.
Good article overall, but I think the prose needs to polished in a fair few places before this is ready to pass, some of those identified are some examples. Can you get some expert copyeditors like Eric and RHM22 perhaps to give it a read and copyedit? Will be glad to support once points are addressed and has been given another copyedit.♦ Dr. Blofeld09:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it would still be good for some great copyeditors to give it a read but it seems to be near the line to me. There doesn't seem a tremendous amount of biographical material on her, she's notable largely because of the horses. Good job.♦ Dr. Blofeld09:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Been looking through some of the sources and have found some issues with these paraphrases - I hope with these being clarified it could help this article fully meet the FA criteria: ☠Jaguar☠16:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article: "Robert McCormick had no children of his own, "doted" on Bazy,[8]"
Source: "Robert McCormick ... was childless and doted on his niece."
Maybe something like "McCormick also told her to [decide between] Garvin Tankersley and the Tribune Company"? ☠Jaguar☠13:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article: "Tankersley had started his career as a photographer and became managing editor, leaving the paper in 1952, later returning to the newspaper business as a director of the Tribune Company of Chicago from 1973 to 1981.[18]"
Source: "Tankersley ... started as a photographer ... He rose to become managing editor before leaving the paper in 1952 ... He was a director of the Tribune Co. of Chicago from 1973 to 1981".
I reworded that one to: " Garvin Tankersley had started his news career as a photographer. He was the managing editor when he left the paper in 1952. Many years later, he served as a director of the Tribune Company from 1973 to 1981." Better? Montanabw(talk)05:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those I don't think are bad cases. The schools one especially is fine. The two McCormick ones are clear though and some of the words of the others might be tweaked slightly though.♦ Dr. Blofeld17:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to suggestions for improvement, so thank both of you. Do note that I DID put direct source quotations inside quotation marks, so I don't think the first two need changes; there are only so many ways one can say some phrases, though if you can suggest improvements, that's good too. I am open to suggested ways to rephrase the others; sometimes it is useful for someone who has not seen the sources to propose wording. Blofeld does this, and even when I don't institute his suggestions verbatim, his ideas give me a kickstart to figure out a useful solution. Montanabw(talk)07:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing most, I left down a few examples I could think of but overall I think the majority of the paraphrasing have been corrected. I'll support this nomination now as I can't find any more issues myself, and I'm confident that all of the above have been addressed. Good luck! ☠Jaguar☠13:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Citations in the "Reference" section - some end in a period, others do not. This should be consistent throughout the section.
Very hard for me to spot which do and which don't, can you flag the obvious ones? I think all the ones where I used the templates have them, the ones where Reflinks did the work may not... eek! Montanabw(talk)23:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Bazy_with_horses.jpg has two FURs, the first of which is far better and more complete - suggest removing the second. Also, this source attributes the image to Al-Marah, so would probably be worth mentioning that in the image description
Mostly, but the photo credit is not in the source currently in the image description (at least not that I see), but the one I linked above. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Indraff_and_Bazy.jpg has two different fair-use tags: the generic tag and the historic image tag. Would suggest removing the historic tag as this will be difficult to justify - generic is fine, or you could try making a case for {{non-free biog-pic}}. However, given the dates involved, what steps have you taken to try to find PD images?
Fixed the tag (I think) If you mean seeing if it passes the published-pre-1964 copyright not renewed test, I have only seen images of either individual (Bazy or the horse) in horse magazines and maybe books (and then copied to the web in random places) In fact, that particular image may be one that the family only released recently. I looked for it in Hathi Trust books (searching for Indraff, as he's easier to make a narrow search on) and that particular image didn't pop out at me. I'm open to ideas, though. Montanabw(talk)05:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to pursue that, you could contact the family to confirm it was only recently released, and ask whether others were published earlier. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not real comfortable with that. For one thing, I prefer not to disclose my RL identity in connection with my wikipedia editing, but these folks would want to know who I am and that I'm not a troll. Also, given that I think the family has been "drinking from a firehose" ever since her death (Miller had to shut down his dinner show to take over the Al-Marah operation, just as an example), I'd hate to burden them. Montanabw(talk)21:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – With the caveat that you could hardly find a topic about which I know less than this, I add my support. The article is certainly of FA quality so far as the prose is concerned, and it seems to me to be comprehensive and balanced, and is clearly well sourced and referenced. A fine piece of work, it seems to me, and I'm glad to line up behind the earlier supporters. Tim riley talk20:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In 1991, Mexican singer Luis Miguel released an album called Romance, a collection of 12 classic boleros. This peculiar recording singlehandedly brought back popularity for the bolero in the 1990s. Miguel was just known as a teen idol before this recording and not only did he get the younger audience into boleros, but he also gained a following with an older crowd. It was so successful, that he recorded three more bolero albums in his career and Romance is one of the bestselling albums of all time in Mexico. I previously worked on Romances (Luis Miguel album) (the third album in the Romance series) and it became the first article about a Spanish-language album to be FA. Since the last FAC, the article has gone through another copyedit and peer review.
Note to the spotchecker Most of the articles are in Spanish and articles from El Informador can be searched here. I currently do not know how to link articles from that site as they only appear in PDF files. Erick (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Luismigueltour.jpg seems to have a good license, but the description should be improved, with something else than just "Luis Miguel". Also, the date "October" should be improved to 13 October 2008 (the date of uploading) or just October 2008 (if there is doubt if the photo was taken the same day than it was uploaded).
I've added an English description for Manzanero's picture per your request. In regards to the last file however, I'm having doubts whether the uploader truly did have rights to upload that photo. In fact, Crisco 1492 told the reason none of the photos were used when Romances became TFA was because he had doubts any of the photos uploaded on Commons were truly free. So I went to Flickr and uploaded a file that has proper licensing which is now used in this article. Erick (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Background and recording: The image of Manzanero does not clarify it is him: for someone who is not familiar with them, it may be understood to be a photo of Luis Miguel (have in mind that Luis Miguel's picture comes later in the article, and the album cover has his face in shadows). Besides, the photo should be on the right, to be "looking" in the direction of the text. Add a comma between "tunes" and "which". There is a sentence in the third paragraph with two long comments between parentheses; try to reword it to avoid that. The last sentence is very long and repetitive, it may be better split into two or more sentences. --Cambalachero (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC) All have been fixed Cambalachero (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Singles and promotion: The sentence that begins with "The music video for "No Sé Tú"..." is a bit complex and should be divided into two sentences. Cambalachero (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC) All fixed Cambalachero (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Track listing:You should link Manzanero both times; the overlinking rule does not apply to elements of tables as this. And see if the other authors don't deserve an article; I guess that Chico Novarro should have one. Red links are not a problem when writing a featured article. Cambalachero (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Done Cambalachero (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right so, I've moved the picture of Manzanero to the right. I previously had "(pictured)" after "Manzanero" but I removed it after Nikkimaria said in the previous peer review that is not needed if the person is the sole focus of the photo. Since you brought up a very good point about readers not familiar with Miguel's appearance, I've re-added it. I've added the comma and I've reworked the three sentences to the best of my ability (my grammar isn't that good so that I had this article copy-edited by Miniapolis twice). I'm open to any suggestions if they still need improving. I added the other two best-selling albums of Mexico and linked all the composers and Manzanero again. Erick (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cambalachero: It's been nearly two weeks since you've made a comment. I understand if you're really busy, but I'm afraid of the FAC closing due to a lack of activity. Erick (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As said, I'm a bit busy. I hope that I can complete my re-review of the article, to check if things have been fixed, by tomorrow. Please don't close this FAC before that, I promise to do it as quickly as possible Cambalachero (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I just wanted to make sure that everything was fine so that the FAC doesn't get archived due to lack of activity. Erick (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 1. The 1987 year for signing with WEA is not in the cited source, nor are the years in which the songs were produced. There are some minor variations in the song titles (e.g. Un hombre busca a una mujer in the source, vs Busca una mujer in the article. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added source for the year he signed on with WEA Latina from Billboard. If you're referring to the years in parenthesis after each album, according to MOS:ALBUMS. If not, then I need some clarifications. It's referred to as Busca una mujer in most sources such as Allmusic, but it might have been marketed as Un hombre busca una mujer in some regions.
I'm not familiar with the requirements for music articles, so I will just make notes as I check, and leave it to someone more familiar with music articles to decide whether this is acceptable - I was referring to the years in parenthesis, which are not cited (unless they are cited elsewhere in the article). I will check MOS though! All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 3. Background and recording section, who had produced Miguel's records since he signed with the label - this is not in the cited source. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added a source that says Calderon produced the previous three albums mentioned in the first sentence of the paragraph. Erick (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry that I've been so inactive lately and didn't respond to your request earlier!
Only one external link that we might be able to replace
Some red links in the track listing table that should be removed
The credits and personnel are so limited that I don't find the need to separate them by performance and technical subheads
I don't see any other issues that would prevent me from giving my support once these are addressed, since I am sure you will handle them! Great work! WikiRedactor (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiRedactor: Thanks for the support! I looked up the toolserver but the only link is that it's having some trouble is working fine for me. As for the red links, Cambalachero suggested above to add them as they're fine for tables and Nikkimaria suggested on the peer review to split the credits into performance and non-performance credits. Cheers! Erick (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC) EDIT: WikiRedactor, the red links have been removed per SNUGGUMS comment below. Erick (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS, thanks for your input. I split the the opening sentence into two sentences, removed the red links, and corrected the publishers for Los Angeles Times, The Baltimore Sun, Chicago Tribune, and Billboard (for articles before 2009). In regards, to The New York Times, Template:Cite news says the publisher parameter is for the company that publishes the article and to omit the publisher if it is nearly the same as the work, so I removed the publisher for the NY Times. For the sample, I included that the song contains string arrangements on the description as it is mentioned in the article that the recording contains them. The picture is there to show what the singer looks like because the album cover has the artist in a silhouette. I also changed the caption in the picture to fit the description of the section more accurately. Erick (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help. One thing I should note though is that references should be consistent with using publishers (or lack thereof) per FA criterion 2c, consistently formatted inline citations. The sample's description is better, but it should include genres and elements as well. I don't see the need for including "the album's second single" in its description. See the sample descriptions in Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band for good examples. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I added the publisher for the NY Times and expanded the description of "No Sé Tú" based on the article you provided by adding a quote from Vibe magazine. Erick (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Unas, the ninth and last ruler of the 5th Dynasty of Egypt, ruling in the mid-24th century BC. Although not much is known of his activities during his 15 to 30 years long reign, Unas is best known to us as the earliest king to have the Pyramid Texts inscribed on the walls of his pyramid, one of the oldest religious text still in existence. This could explain why Unas' article receives c. 40,000 views / year, about twice as much as a typical Old Kingdom pharaoh. Article passed GA on the 23rd of March and is part of a series of GA and FA articles on the 5th Dynasty (see Shepseskare, Sahure, Pyramid of Userkaf). Iry-Hor (talk) 08:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I reviewed for GAN, and the few points I identified then as needing to be tweaked before FAC have been dealt with. The article reads well, is widely and thoroughly cited, and as far as I can see is comprehensive. With FACs for articles on topics of which I am ignorant (it is remarkable how many there are) I try to find online equivalents, both free and subscription, for comparison. I had to dig hard to find anything about Unas (or any of his alternative spellings). This Wikipedia page is much the best encyclopaedia article I can find on the topic. A fine job. Tim riley talk16:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I am sorry, I do not know what is a US PD tag? The Brooklyn museum database, from which this photo originates, states that it has "no known copyright restrictions" see here, furthermore the wikicommons page states that the author died more than 70 years ago. I do not know who the author is, since it is not listed on the Brooklyn museum database. Iry-Hor (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I got it, I added the necessary tag based on the "no known copyright restrictions" statement from the Brooklyn museum. Let me know if this ok. Iry-Hor (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it necessary to cite Naydler? He is not an Egyptologist and his book is uncomfortably close to fringe territory (see this discussion on my talk page and, if you can access it, [www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27651811?sid=21104948486711 this review]). I know the book is used to cite something that doesn't need deep interpretation, but you already cite an RS to support the same statement.
You are right, I only put up this book because it was the only one I could find with an accessible drawing of Unas' Sed festival relief. I hesitated at the time over wether to keep the citation or not and I should have removed it. Done now! Iry-Hor (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford Encyclopedia articles are listed as separate works in the bibliography, but Allen et al. 1999 is listed as one work even though you cite two articles from it. Both works should be treated the same way. I'd prefer to combine the Oxford Encyclopedia entries, as the bibliography is pretty long.
The problem is I do not know how to do that because the various entries from the Oxford Encyclopedia which I quote were written by different authors and come from Volume 2 and Volume 3. At the opposite, the references from Allen's Egyptian Art in the Age of the Pyramids which I use were all written by C. Ziegler so I could easily combine them in the bibliography using the "chapter" option of the cite book template and a harvid option so that the reference reads "C. Ziegler in Allen et al.". I do not know of to make several such harvid showing up differently but pointing to the same bibliography item. Thus I do not know how to meaningfully combine these references. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed this reply. I didn't realize Sfn templates made it difficult to do that, unlike the Harvnb system I use. Assuming you don't want to convert the article's entire reference system, I suggest you either split the bibliography entries for the two Ziegler pieces, or ask at WP:Village pump (technical) if there's a way to use Sfn to cite multiple authors in one book, where all the citations link to one bibliography entry. A. Parrot (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are two citations (5 and 15) to Malek in Shaw 2000. The second one refers to page 102, which is correct in my copy. The first refers to page 112, which seems to be a typo for 102 (page 112 is in Seidlmayer's chapter on the First Intermediate Period).
I know there are already a lot of citations to Lehner 1997 p. 154 and 155, so it might not make sense to combine them all into one. The part about the Pyramid Texts, though, runs across those two pages, so it's probably advisable to change the PT-related citations (currently 98g and 98h) to pp.154–155.
Lehner 142–144 says Sahure's temple has palmiform columns, but it doesn't seem to say that that was the first known time they were used. Do you have another source that says that?
You are right it is not in Lehner, I am sure I read it somewhere but can't find the source anymore. I changed the statement to " A palmiform column is a column whose capital has the form of palm leaves. This style is for example present in the mortuary complex of king Sahure" and will put it back when/if I can figure out where I read this. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of problems with the word "bedouins". For one thing, "bedouin" is an Arabic plural and doesn't need an -s. More importantly, it may not even be the right word here. I know the word is sometimes used in Egyptology, including in your source, to refer to transient people on the fringes of Egyptian territory. But our article bedouin regards the term as applying only to Arabs, who wouldn't have been in the Egyptian deserts in Unas' time. Maybe a broader term like "nomad" would be better.
I'd prefer not to italicize the Cannibal Hymn or Memphite Theology. They're much shorter works than the major funerary texts, and in my experience, Egyptologists don't italicize either name. There might be grounds to put the Cannibal Hymn in quotation marks, as it's part of a larger work and, unlike other spells in the major funerary texts, it's known by a name and not just a number. However, most Egyptological sources don't even use quotation marks (e.g., [31]).
Nearly all scholars today believe the Memphite Theology was composed well after the Old Kingdom; this study mentions only one recent dissenting source (see p. 107), and it apparently doesn't argue the question in detail. The major dispute now seems to be whether the text comes from the Ramesside period or Shabaka's own time. The old claim that the Memphite Theology was composed under Unas might still be worth mentioning in this article, but only if it's made clear that it's an outdated view.
Egyptological sources often claim that the Pyramid Texts are the oldest religious texts in the world, but I increasingly doubt that claim. Sumerians began assembling elaborate lists of gods in the Early Dynastic I period. A list might not seem as complex a composition as a hymn, let alone the PT, but my source says "lists of gods remained one of the most productive theological genres throughout the entire life span of Mesopotamian civilization" (Paul-Alain Beaulieu, "Histories: Mesopotamia", in Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide, edited by Sarah Iles Johnston, 2004, p. 166). And yes, the PT existed long before Unas' time, but we have no way of knowing how long. To claim that the PT are the oldest anything, we'd need a source that examines other religious texts up to that time, from Egypt and Mesopotamia, and says exactly what was new about the PT. I don't think anybody has actually done that.
Well I agree that it is a bit contentious so I removed the bit on the Kesh temple hymn and left simply "[...] one of the oldest religious text in Egypt having survived to this day". Iry-Hor (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have a bunch of real-life obligations today. I'll examine these changes and get back to you within the next 12 hours. A. Parrot (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All those changes look good. I've noticed a variety of small prose flaws, mostly related to English idiom. I made changes to address the ones I saw (see what you think of them, Iry-Hor). Just to make sure there aren't any more, I want to read over the article one more time, with fresh eyes, before I support. I should get to that by this time tomorrow. In the meantime, I have one more suggestion that seemed significant enough to bring up here:
"Given that the ancient Egyptians did not conceive of dynasties…" This sounds a little bit odd to me, given that Manetho was an ancient Egyptian, although the Greco-Roman era in which he lived is often considered not genuinely Egyptian. Maybe "ancient Egyptians before Manetho's time did not conceive of dynasties", if the source's wording supports that. A. Parrot (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@A. Parrot: The source, which has 3 pages of discussion on the idea of dynasty during the Old Kingdom, favors the idea that dynasties were a later invention which might not have been recognized by the Old Kingdom Egyptians: "Nous suggérons par conséquent, faute d’explication convaincante de la notion de dynastie à l’Ancien Empire [...] qu’un tel découpage pourrait avoir été inconnu. De la sorte, la division dynastique à cette époque serait due à une tradition postérieure aux événements, «résultat de sa propre interprétation des textes disponibles»" meaning roughly "We thus suggest, in the absence of a convincing explanation for the notion of dynasty during the Old Kingdom [...] that such a division [into dynasties] might well have been unknown. Therefore, the dynastic division at this time [i.e. between the 5th and 6th dynasties] would be due to a later tradition resulting from its own interpretation of the available texts." Consequently, I changed the text to "that the Egyptians of the Old Kingdom period might not have conceived of dynasties". Thanks for your edits to the text, the article reads much better now. Iry-Hor (talk) 11:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on comprehensiveness and prose - I read this a couple of times on my smartphone while waiting for something or other. Nothing jumped out as a glaring prose-fix, hough there may still be some non-deal-breaker tweaks left. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe three supports is the minimum required for passage, so it should be promoted the next time the delegates come around. I do have an unresolved comment about the references above, but it's a persnickety thing that doesn't affect the substance of the article, so you don't really have to address it if you don't want. I hope that hasn't been holding up promotion. A. Parrot (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note -- The second paragraph under Pyramid is uncited after "The pyramid of Unas is the smallest". If this were simply an introduction to the cited material following then it would be okay but much of it, e.g. dimensions and considerations of greatness do not seem to be elaborated upon and cited in the remainder of the section. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Sorry for the delay, I was super busy and just saw all the posts. I added citations for the dimensions of the pyramid and removed the last sentence of the paragraph so it is now fully cited. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a nice flower from cool and wet forests in southeastern Australia. Started reading as I was planning on trying to grow some...and so began buffing the article. There are two of us nominating so we should be able to address issues pretty quickly. I have scoured just about everywhere I can think of for info. Have at it, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can you possibly expand this article more? The last paragraph in the "Distribution and Habitat" section should be either expanded or merged (I highly suggest expansion). Also, I think the "Ecology" section should be expanded, because compared to the "Cultivation" section, it is inadequately small. If there's no more information, then it should stay as A-class; not big enough to be a FA, but better than a GA. Also, if known, shouldn't there be the status of the species (Least Concern, Near Threatened, Threatened, Endangered, Critically Endangered or Extinct) in the taxobox? For these reasons, I think it does not meet all the FA criteria (unless it can be expanded) and should be A-class. Gug01 (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
what specific ecology information do you think it is missing that should be added? Size is not a criterion for FA status but comprehensiveness is. I am looking for something on its status, which is tricky as it is a default "not threatened" but need somewhere that states it. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The species has not yet been assessed for the IUCN Red List, so we can't use an IUCN conservation status in the taxobox. I have added the species conservation status for Australia and Victoria (NSW previously mentioned) in the text.--Melburnian (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I've confused you, but I meant comprehensiveness. I've seen that you've nailed down the "Distribution and Habitat" section. Apparently you two have added both photos and information to the "Ecology" section, or maybe my eyes are just tricking me. At any rate, I'll make another post supporting the article, because I really believe its ready for FA status now. Gug01 (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Telopeaoreadesrangemap.png -- Concern: Summary of the source map File:SoutheastAustralia MapLocator.png has a tag on it saying it needs review. I cannot identify the source of that map. The data set for the species distribution is an off-line source, so invking WP:AGF. Also, should the map be moved to the infobox?
not sure what to do about that - best to ask at commons and either exonerate or nuke the parent file I guess....if nuked I will draw another one. Will ask over there. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you or I could make a nicer looking map in SVG format. I'd be honored to assist, though suspect you can handle it. --Gaff (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, yer on - offer of help greatly appreciated and taken up. send me an email and I'll send you an image of the range from the book I have. I am not good with different file types...cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
New map is up here File:Telopea_oreades_distribution_map.svg. The source map and data set are referenced on the file and should be good to go, but since I created it, maybe somebody else, such as @Nikkimaria: can review this image? To clarify, the prior map has been upgraded d/t source and quality concerns. New map needs review. Thank you. --Gaff (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Licensing is fine on new map, but I'm interested in the data: since the source is a heat map, how did you derive the distinct shape for distribution? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will take that web-linked source down, since it is not the best source. See discussion here on better sourcing. If you email either me or Cas Liber, we can send you a scan from the textbook source, which is considered definitive. --Gaff (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing has been clarified on the file. Casliber has the book and sent me a copy of the figure, which we can email to anyone interested. That should be sufficient verification. Gaff (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"It can be difficult to distinguish from T. mongaensis though the leaves of the latter species" I think "latter" should be used only when two or more things have been clearly identified in the sentence, so perhaps "It can be difficult to distinguish T. oreades from T. mongaensis’’ …"
links: clay, frost; pruned; cutting; T. speciosissima; Dandenongs
"white flowered cultivars" hyphen
"Plantsmen have also developed several hybrids with T. oreades, looking to combine the hardiness of this species with the showier flowerheads of the latter." Confused as to what “this” and “the latter” species are here.
"larger shrub which may reach" which->that
"It is durable, yet can be readily polished and worked with," Is durable wood known to be harder to polish and work with? If not, perhaps replace "yet" with "and"
"wet forest and rain forest" -- excuse my ignorance, but are these two separate? My point here is the repetitive use of the word "forest".
yes - wet forest is actually wet sclerophyll forest, which is still dominated by eucalypts and does burn from time to time. Will double check on best links damn sclerophyll only linkable option at the moment....need to figure out this later. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Description
" When dried, the leaves appear to have granular texture" -- When dried, the leaves appear to have a granular texture?
"The Gippsland waratah was first formally described by the Victorian Government Botanist Ferdinand von Mueller in 1861 in Fragmenta Phytographiae Australiae, from material collected in rugged mountainous country around Nungatta Creek, a tributary of the Genoa River in south-eastern New South Wales."-- Phew, that's a bit long. Could this be broken up between "Australiae" and "from"?
"Telopea oreades is not listed under Commonwealth environmental legislation and is not considered to be rare or threatened in Victoria or New South Wales." -- not considered by who?
"A selected white-flowered form from the Errinundra Plateau, which was originally known as 'Plateau View Alba' or 'Plateau View White' was registered by the..." -- seem to missing a comma: "A selected white-flowered form from the Errinundra Plateau, which was originally known as 'Plateau View Alba' or 'Plateau View White', was registered by the..."
The timber is fairly hard and resembles silky oak (Grevillea robusta). It is durable, and can be readily polished and worked with, and is amenable for use in furniture, picture frames and tool handles. --"It is durable, and..." I don't think the comma helps here. Also, two conjunctions in the same sentence makes for slightly bumpy reading. Suggest: "The timber is fairly hard and resembles silky oak (Grevillea robusta). It is durable and can be readily polished making it and amenable for use in furniture, picture frames and tool handles."
"Several cultivars that are hybrid forms with T. speciosissima have been developed, such as the 'Shady Lady' series, and are commercially available." - This sentence is awkwardly expressed.
In the lead and the description section you state "the flowerheads, known as inflorescences,". Isn't that tautology, equivalent to saying "the leaves, also known as foliage"?
I see your point - not quite though as inflorescence is a less accessible term to lay readers than foliage. I thought this was better than parentheses or an easter egg link. All sources on proteaceae seem to use inflorescence when discussing flowers so important to somehow mention.... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The description of the flowers and fruits is good and clearly written. Full marks :)
The only mention of the word "follicle" is in the caption to an image.
"(Privet Mock‐olive) (Notelaea ligustrina),[23] Banyalla (Pittosporum bicolor), Errinundra Plum Pine (Podocarpus sp. aff.lawrencei (Goonmirk Rocks)),[23] Errinundra Pepper (Tasmannia xerophila subsp. robusta)[23] and soft tree fern (Dicksonia antarctica)." - There are a few anomalies in use of brackets and in capitalisation of this list.
"The prominent position and striking colour of Telopea oreades and many of its relatives within the subtribe Embothriinae both in Australia and South America strongly suggest it is adapted to pollination by birds, and has been for over 60 million years." - This sentence needs some extra punctuation.
"The wet forests it grows in are infrequently burnt by fire" - to me infrequently is equivalent to rarely or occasionally, and I think the rest of the sentence is oddly expressed.
How about "The wet forests in which it grows seldom catch fire. When they do, the sclerophyll woodland becomes more open until slow-growing plants with larger leaves take over." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Waratah seeds are often eaten by animals and do not travel far (several metres) from the parent plants." - Could you explain this? When seeds are eaten by animals, they often become widely dispersed.
the seeds are highly edible and not covered with anything, hence when they are eaten they are destroyed. Will look in source to see if I can add this from that. added this. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Cultivars must be propagated by cutting to make new a plant identical to its parent." - This sentence could be better expressed.
Support. I am happy with the changes made since I made my comments and now support this candidacy on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the Falcon's Fury drop tower attraction currently in operation at the Busch Gardens Tampa Bay amusement park. This is the fourth nomination; the other three were closed due to a lack of responses/feedback; so please review! The article was reviewed and promoted to GA by The Rambling Man and copy-edited by Miniapolis. Thanks!--Dom497 (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Cptnono
The lead seems short. It loos to be a good summary of the article, though. Consider adding a few lines if possible. (possible action needed but will consider supporting without)
I know it seems short but I feel like it gives the perfect preview of the topic without going into too much detail. However, I would be happy to add on to it if you would like me to. :) --Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It might seem contrary to the above, but the lead bogs down in specific dates regarding the delay in opening. Would such details be better in the body with more general phrasing in the lead? (Summer of 2014, delayed x weeks/months, or similar)? (possible action needed but will consider supporting without)
All the dates in the lead can be considered "important" dates which is why I made sure I specified the exact date (dates of when an attraction opens is considered important).--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The quote "interesting soil conditions" is lacking. I found my self checking the ref just to get something more specific. Can it be reworded? A quick paraphrase without the quote would work.
The article never states what the exact conditions were so I fail to see what your are reading as more specific (do you mind explaining please? :D )
I assume the FAA is mentioned due to the height. A line explaining this would be useful.
I feel like the reader is bombarded with the term "queue" in the first paragraph of the "Ride experience" section. Can this be adjusted? (possible action needed but will consider supporting without)
Is "tonne" the correct measurement to use before conversion? I'm under the impression that it is a "metric ton" in the US so it threw me off. I could be wrong, though.
I live in Canada so I have no idea! I was just going of what I used/was asked for during GA reviews for some of the other articles I have written. I could easily be wrong.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "Robert Niles of Theme Park Insider..."is awkward. I think "tolerances" should be used instead of "limitations" (as the source did) and would consider removing the quoted line altogether by replacing it with a clearer paraphrasing of the idea.
The reliability of two of the Youtube videos jumps out as a possible concern. Are those reputable publishers in the industry?
I love it when I'm asked this question (I'm always asked it)! Theme Park Review is a widely recognized amusement related website. The same goes with In the Loop (also known as Coaster Crew). A simple Google search should show you. :) --Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is ref 16 a viable link? It redirects but there is a paywall it could be behind. You can use the permit without a link, though.
Are you sure your talking about ref 16. I think you meant 15. The website naturally forces a redirect but I provided the link so anyway wanting to check it out could go to the link, input the info mentioned in the ref title, and be done with it.
This was a fine article overall and is is a bummer that the previous reviews have stagnated. Most of my concerns are minor and I hope previous reviewers pop by to reassert their support if they still feel the sane way.Cptnono (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This article has the most elaborate references I've ever seen. Do we really need three dates in every ref? (The archival and retrieval dates are surely unnecessary when you provide an archive link?) It's also overkill to mention "Government of the United States of America" or "The Washington Post Company" (right next to The Washington Post).—indopug (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Indopug: I know it may look weird but I'm just following the rules/guidelines of citations. From what I know, when an archive link is provided, you still need to provide the archival and original retrieval dates.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Indopug: Does the above comment indicate you've done a source review for formatting and reliability of sources? No pressure if not, just let me know as we'll need such a review before we consider promoting (there's already a request at WT:FAC). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I note below that Christine was satisfied with the refs, so after spotchecking the formatting myself I think we'll go with it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reviewed this article at the last nomination and my only concern was met. I'd hate to see this archived again due to a lack of response, so I'll certainly give my support again. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prose checks out, and refs look satisfactory. It looks like all concerns were addressed in previous reviews, so there should be no reason why this article can't pass this time. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Falcon's_Fury_logo.png: first source link is dead, and "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing Infobox"? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thanks for checking out the images. Regarding the dead link, are you talking about this one, because it works fine for me. Regarding the weird sentence, it appears that has to do with the template not the uploaders wrong doing. :) --Dom497 (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article has had several reviews by now and has improved considerably; I'm not seeing any further issues that stand in the way of FA. Shii(tock)12:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, I'm back after about four months off, with Air Mata Iboe. This Fifi Young vehicle follows the tragic story of a mother who is left to find her own way after one of her adult sons is jailed and the other two do not support her. As usual for Indonesian films from this period, it's likely lost. The article isn't all that long, and with a little help from SchroCat the prose looks absolutely peachy — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning support. Sounds like a real tearjerker. Just a few things.
Lede
"who raises her children attentively " this seems like faint praise for a mother who is plainly being portrayed positively. Perhaps "tenderly" or even, God forbid, "lovingly"?
"This possibly lost film was reviewed positively at the time, though later the director Tan Tjoei Hock claimed credit for finishing it." I don't understand the "though". The two items seem unrelated.
"As the children grow, they marry and move away. Eventually only Soemadi is left." the short sentences make the prose choppy. Can the two sentences be combined?
" and find her own way, depending on the kindness of strangers. Years pass, and Soemadi returns from exile. Seeing his mother living in poverty" It sounds like she is hitting the road, yet when Soemadi sees her, it sounds more like she is at a fixed abode, otherwise I'd expect a word like "encounters"
Support - As per the nom above, I did an informal PR (no jacketsor ties were worn). I can see the further work hasstrengthened the article since then, and I'm happy to support this nom. - SchroCat (talk) 11:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Might want to add a footnote giving a brief description of Eid al-Fitr, unfamiliar to most western readers I've sure.
Disagree, as we've got an entire article for them to read if they're curious, and Eid is considerably better known than the other two topics below.
(no relation to Fred), Rd Ismail, Ali Sarosa, and Ali Joego.[5] Other roles were held by established singers of keroncong (traditional music with Portuguese influences) -I'd put both in brackets as footnotes.
Disagree on the Young note (the shared family name may cause confusion, and most readers gloss over the footnotes). Previous FAs have not footnoted the description keroncong, so I'm not really keen on doing that.
keroncong should be linked in the first instance not second.
Rd Ismail -is rd really his name or is it meant to be R. D.?
Rd is an abbreviation for Raden (a priyayi title), as in Rd Mochtar and Rd Ariffien. If I get around to writing an article on him (I think I have the sources) that would eliminate any confusion, but a footnote / gloss strikes me as overboard. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote C I think might be in a section on music, but if it's just a list I guess not.
Support Given that it's on a "probably" lost film and not a terrific amount of material on it I think it's about as comprehensive as it's going to get. Not the strongest film article I've ever read but given the period and country it is impressive enough that you managed to write that. Good job.♦ Dr. Blofeld14:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dr. B. Sadly the period is very underdocumented, though (fortunately for Wikipedia) my RL work often relates to it. For instance, once this working paper is accepted for journal publication, we'll probably have enough to bring Saeroen to GA and maybe FA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review
Explanatory note b appears to contain a personal judgement ("they may never have been completed")
I cannot find any citations to the Lagu Keroncong Tempo Doeloe source.
This article covers the war in 1835-1836 that led to Texas independence from Mexico. In one corner, we have a grandiose dictator, convinced his honor depends on wiping out American vermin, who tolerated no argument with his increasingly short-sighted decisions. In the other, a group of ill-disciplined volunteers - some of whom had been in Texas only five minutes - who couldn't agree on what they were fighting for or whether the orders their commanders issued really needed to be followed after all. The fact that today (March 2, 2015) we're celebrating the 179th anniversary of Texas independence is, quite frankly, a miracle.
We began work on this article after a WMF representative passed on a request by The History Channel for this article to be on the main page at the end of May, when their new miniseries Texas Rising premieres. While the History Channel's miniseries are known for their, ahem, loose relationship to actual events, we hope this article can clear up any misconceptions that viewers might have. Neither Maile nor I have had any contact with The History Channel reps - this is a topic we've long been interested in, and the request was simply a push for us to actually jump in.
Support. I was impressed with this at peer review, and everything I noted there has been fixed. It's good to see higher-level history articles getting brought to featured level. Very nice work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very quick driveby comment (delegate, don't take this as a support or oppose); the Legacy section talks about English-speaking and Tejano perspectives on it, but doesn't mention how Mexican historians view it. (Per my comments a couple of months ago, the featured es:Independencia de Texas gives a very different weight to various parts of the story, most noticeably to the US eye only giving a couple of sentences to the Alamo, and this presumably reflects their sources). When I get the chance, I'll do a proper read-through and review of this finished version. – iridescent13:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been unable to find sources in English that discuss current Mexican perspectives on the war, although there is one note that Spanish-language sources also compare the Alamo to the Battle of Thermopolaye. I've found a few translations of Spanish essays by Josefina Vazquez (a university professor in Mexico), and they seem to approach the topic very similarly to the English-language sources. I'll keep looking for more coverage of that perspective in the English-language sources, but there's not much I can do if it isn't in English. Karanacs (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was a talk page invitation at the WP Mexico, asking for input from that project when we knew this was coming up. You can find that post at this link. As far as I remember, nobody responded. — Maile (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on the article's talk page, back in January we did solicit Mexico's viewpoint from a WP editor who lives in Mexico and is part of WP Project Mexico. His response is Here. — Maile (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now having read through the (imperfect) Google translation, I think the basic story is the same. Some differences. Like our own article before Karanacs reworked it, Tejano participation in the revolution is missing. There is more emphasis on slavery being the cause of the revolution, and an emphasized POV that the revolution was instigated by interlopers from the USA. The Runaway Scrape is mentioned only in that Houston's motive was to pick his own terrain for the battle, and to disrupt the Mexican army's supply sources. They have Santa Anna burning Gonzales, when it was Houston who actually did that. And if Google Translate got it right, the Spanish language version says the Texian army went against Houston's authority to pursue Santa Anna. Their aftermath is not much, but doesn't contradict with what we have. I think the article we submit here with FA is a much more detailed, fleshed-out account of the same story. — Maile (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As previously discussed somewhere on the article's talkpage I still have one minor concern, that it doesn't (in my opinion) adequately discuss the difference between the pop-culture account everyone "knows" and the reality of what actually happened. (I was involved in the chains of events that led to the creation of Gunpowder Plot in popular culture and Michael Jackson's health and appearance, and know from bitter experience just how much hassle shooing away well-meaning "but it definitely happened this way, I saw it on TV" editors can be unless you either spell out exactly what John Wayne got wrong, or create a separate Texas Revolution in popular culture page to act as a heatsink for the people who've just seen the Billy-Bob Thornton movie and want to change the article to reflect it.) However this doesn't reflect on the existing article, the topic of which is Texas Revolution not Why so many American children are taught an incorrect version of the history of the Texas Revolution—it just means that I suspect it will be harder to keep stable—so isn't something over which to oppose. – iridescent17:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arrggghhh! I have an ongoing first-hand experience of what you speak. In my case, it's Audie Murphy, everybody's an expert on that which they have not researched. Karanacs has touched on this misconception issue in the last paragraph of Legacy. Her writing is far above mine, so I'm not going to muck with her prose. And I'm not going to second-guess how she did any of it. But I can tell you first-hand that one of my earliest memories in life was being taken to the Cenotaph and being told about Bowie, Crockett and Travis, at least the version that never mentioned anyone of color. Any movie I saw, any book I read, only told a slightly different version of what Disney and John Wayne told us. Almost two centuries since the revolution of some fact interspersed with fiction, enough for a stand-alone article and then some. This is Karanacs' call if she wants to delve further into it in the article. — Maile (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the page number for footnote 41 "Davis (2006), pp. 206, 2011." is incorrect as the book only runs to about 370 pages. Should it perhaps be 201, 210 or 211 instead of 2011?
Schoelwer, Susan Prendergast (1985) listed in the references appears not to be used in the article.
"Stuart (2007), p. 84." should probably be changed to either Stuart (2008) or Reid (2007).
P. S. Burton, I've fixed these three. Thank you so much for doing the final gnome-work on this article. I had checked it several times and embarrassed I missed to many of those details. Karanacs (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome Karanacs. I guess it takes more than one pair of eyes to catch them all. On that note, there might still be something wrong with the Stuart ref. You now have two separate refs pointing to Stuart (2008), p. 84. But one of them have the ref name "stuart87". Perhaps either the page number is wrong or the two refs can be combined. P. S. Burton (talk)23:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While almost all page numbers in the ref name parameter matches the cites pages rages, these do not, which makes me suspect some errors might have crept in: <ref name=lack45and57>Lack (1992), pp. 56–7.</ref>, <ref name="winders57">Winders (2004), p. 54.</ref>, <ref name=lack45and57>Lack (1992), pp. 56–7.</ref>, <ref name=hardin129>Hardin (1994), p. 128.</ref>, and <ref name=hardin192and3>Hardin (1994), pp. 190–3.</ref> Might be worth looking in to.
The map in the background section appears to be correct, but there is no source for the information given in File:Mexico 1835-1846 administrative map-en-2.svg. Perhaps something could be added to the file description.
I think this is a excellent and very accessible account of the revoultion, however, as a European with hardly no prior knowledge of these events I have a few questions after reading trough the article.
It might be worth noting if any other sources supports or disproves Reid's theory that Grant was a British secret agent.
In this paragraph "Temperatures reached record lows, and by February 13 an estimated 15–16 inches (38–41 cm) of snow had fallen. A large number of the new recruits were from the tropical climate of the Yucatán, and some of them died of hypothermia." it is not immediately clear to the reader why specifically the recruits from the tropical climate died from hypothermia. Were they for example ill-dressed compared to the other troops?
The second-to-last paragraph in the section "Goliad campaign" concerning the Texians' surrender is a bit hard to follow. First I thought all of them surrendered on March 20, but then the text talks about a second surrender two days later. Was it only Fannin who surrendered on March 20? If so perhaps that could be made more clear.P. S. Burton (talk)23:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to who surrendered when, I added "with Fannin" after the Texians who surrendered on the 20th. It says earlier in that section that Ward's men were conducting raids on ranches, and Fannin had no word from them. Two different surrenders, Fannin and his men on the 20th, and Ward etal. on the 22nd.— Maile (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those refs you pointed out are okay; I changed them recently and neglected to change the names.
As for Grant and his purported British roots - Reid's work is fairly new (2007). Previous historians had not examined the British archives. The only more recent major look at the Matamoros Expedition, by Craig Roell in 2013, mentions Reid's conclusion, specifically attributing it to Reid, without passing judgment on whether or not the conclusion has merit. The Texas State Historical Association did hire Reid to write the Handbook of Texas online entry for Grant. Should I mention that in a note? Karanacs (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Grant's article is actually on my list to rewrite. I've only gotten partway through that one. I added a note in this article that says "As of March 2015, no other historian has examined Reid's theory in detail. The Texas State Historical Association's article on Grant was written by Reid and includes mention of this theory." Karanacs (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources frequently mention the people from the Yucatan dying of hypothermia, but it never gives any more details than that. I assume they mean that those men were more susceptible to cold because they hadn't experienced much of it before, but that's just an assumption.
RE the map: I don't know where the original creator got the data, but this is pretty standard stuff, so I added some example works. Karanacs (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Yucatan recruits and hypothermia, I've added a few words and another source that explains that. They were unable to adjust to the freezing harsh winter. — Maile (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article mixes "Battle of Xxx" and "battle of Xxx".
The capitalisation of "constitution" appears to be inconsistent, for example "After adopting the constitution on March 17" and "In response, Burnet called for elections to ratify the Constitution and elect a Congress". –P. S. Burton (talk)15:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When Constitution is capitalized, it is the specific name of the legal document, such as: "Constitution of 1824" and "1824 Constitution" used the same as "Constitution of the United States" and "United States Constitution". Otherwise, it is not proper to capitalize it. The capitalized example you state above has been changed to lower case. But I think the others are correct. — Maile (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. After volunteering to help and forgetting to do so at every step in the process of making this article, I'm glad to offer my support for its promotion. Too bad this article didn't exist a couple years ago when I had to write a 2,000-4,000 word paper on the revolution. - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 00:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think this article is a fine achievement and am very glad that I took the time to read it. I only have a handful of near-pointless minor quibbles:
"Santa Anna soon revealed himself to be a centralist, transitioning the Mexican government to a centralized government." - the dual "centralis*" grates a bit.
"Santa Anna ordered his brother-in-law, General Martín Perfecto de Cos to lead 500 soldiers" - a missing parenthetical comma?
Barr and Hardin are described within the same sentence as "historians" - is there a more interesting or informative way to do it? I wouldn't quibble with the description other than it is twice in the same sentence and thus a little ugly.
"In this time period, captured pirates were executed immediately" - "time period" seems tautological, and it is not clear from the preceding sentence what this time period is.
"to personally oversee". Even if we could turn a blind eye to the split infinitive, in the context of what the sentence as a whole tells us about Santa Anna's plans, "personally" seems redundant. [BTW there's another split infinitive later - "to eventually compensate"]
When did Houston get shot? In, or after, the Battle of San Jacinto? If it was in the battle, it seems odd not to mention it in the section on the battle, which talks about Houston.
The "Foreign relations" section is a bit choppy in the way that it refers to countries: The United States becomes the U.S. and then the United States again; the Republic of Texas becomes "the fledgling republic" but then back to The Republic of Texas in the following sentence; then we have "British policy", "Great Britain" (which doesn't really work with "themselves") and "Britain". I'd just suggest making sure the section flows with its use of short-hand expressions. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies . Mkativerata, for not returning for so long. Your points in order:
I agree that this is clunky, but I was asked by another reviewer to clarify what centralist meant, and this was the least clunky way I could come up with.
Support. I stumbled here from my own FAC and wanted to give it a read :)
"Despite a decade of political and cultural clashes between the Mexican government and the increasingly large population of American settlers in Texas, when hostilities erupted, Texians (English-speaking settlers) disagreed on whether the ultimate goal was independence or a return to the Mexican Constitution of 1824." - for the second sentence of the article, I think this could be simpler. For example - "After a decade of political and cultural clashes between the Mexican government and the increasingly large population of American settlers in Texas, hostilities began due to [X]. However, Texians (English-speaking settlers) disagreed on whether the ultimate goal was independence or a return to the Mexican Constitution of 1824."
I see where you are coming from here. I chose to word it as it is because I couldn't figure out a good way to fill in X. We could say they began because the army asked for the return of the cannon, or because Santa Anna moved the country away from federalism, or because Mexico tried to tax the people (all are accurate). I didn't want to get into too many details in the lead, but I can be convinced otherwise if someone can help me figure out an appropriate way to be accurate and concise. Karanacs (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even something as simple as "After a decade of political and cultural clashes, hostilities began in October 1835 between the Mexican government and the increasingly large population of American settlers in Texas." I feel something different is needed for the second sentence of the article to help set the reader in the right direction. I didn't get even a decent understanding of the article until I read the whole thing, so I think the lead could be summarized just a bit differently. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
" As delegates at the Consultation (provisional government) debated the war's motives" - the word "as" can be ambiguous. When I started reading the sentence, it was unclear whether it meant "because" or "while", so you should clarify and make it the latter.
"Texians and a flood of volunteers" - I think that is a bit too colloquial. Why not "group"?
IMO, it was an onslaught from more than one geographical area. In many ways, it was the "cause of the moment" phenomenon that inspired a lot of volunteers. Kentucky-Ohio alone trained volunteers and had two cannons specially made to donate to the cause. "group" makes it sound like a small handful of one unit. — Maile (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that group sounds like a cohesive set. I considered "horde", but then they sound even more like barbarians ;) I could live with surge or swarm, but I'm not sure if either of those address the tone issue. What do you think? Karanacs (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This could be dumb, but perhaps mention that Texas became a U.S. state in the last sentence of the lead? That was the ultimate outcome of this revolution, after all. Ending with the US-Mexican war seems unnecessarily suspenseful IMO.
"After months of grumbling by Tejanos..." - again, this could use stronger wording. Why not - "After months of dissatisfaction by Tejanos..."?
"Months of dissatisfaction" sounds really awkward to me. The "grumbling" is accurate - there was a lot of talk, but that was all that was going on. The Tejanos had no real political power and didn't do much else but complain. Karanacs (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Most of the immigrants came from the southern United States" - perhaps it should be southeastern United States? Your call though. It was just an immediate thought that "southern" is ambiguous and currently goes from California to Florida.
"further from the influence of the Mexican army" - this should be "farther", as it refers to distance. Ditto later with "The further the army retreated,"
That's probably because of people misusing it for years :P Grammar girl backs up that "farther" is always used for distance, as it has the word "far" in it, while "further" is for figurative distance. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make the image, but I'm pretty sure "from" was left out as a formatting decision. Otherwise that line of text will wrap, and it won't look right. I think it's an acceptable shorthand to omit the from. Karanacs (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Several years before" - poor way to start an entire section. You should say "Several years before the revolution" or something.
Changed to "In the early 1830s, the army loaned ". You're right - we needed to be more precise. I'm not sure whether it happened in 1832 or 1833, which is why I wasn't even more precise than that. Karanacs (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"commander of all Mexican troops in Texas, sent a small detachment of troops" - any way you could avoid having "troops" twice? Could the first one be "military"?
"Grant and between 26 and 53 others roamed in the area between the Nueces River and Matamoros" - I would put "...and 26–53 others roamed the area", cutting "in" and making it a dash. That would make it easier to read IMO.
All in all, a really good read! I was pleasantly surprised by the history of the revolution. The prose was concise and logical. I'll happily support with a bit more work. Cheers, ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I refined the second sentence to "After a decade of political and cultural clashes between the Mexican government and the increasingly large population of American settlers in Texas, hostilities erupted in October 1835." Karanacs (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did spotchecks on Vazquez 1985 and Graham, and all checks out. I'm satisfied, but if more is required, I think I have the Henderson book at home. If the delegates want it, I could do further checks this weekend. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bertin presents as somewhat firesome, but was a charming conversationalist, an arts patron with deep pockets, and had a cheerful -perhalps motherly- disposition. Ingres portrait is rightfully seen as one of the most innovative and importaint 19th c paintings by any artist. Ceoil (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason that one journal source (Lubar, from The Art Bulletin) is given solely in the footnotes but another (Burroughs, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin) has an entry in the Bibliography?
Lubar uses "nr."; Burroughs uses "no.".
Journal citations (Lubar, Burroughs) and chapter citations (Rosenblum 1999, Shelton 1999) should have page numbers, where available.
On the other hand, you probably don't need the page number in the bibliography entry for the Newman et al. reference, as it's provided in the footnote (and, as best as I can tell, there's not a specifically-title subsection of the work located at that page reference).
Is there a reason that the Boime source is not given in title-case?
Ideally, ISBNs should all be properly-hyphenated ISBN-13s. Luckily, conversion is very easy.
You use two-letter state abbreviations in general, but "Conn." for the Mongan source.
Is an OCLC number available for the Pach reference?
The Pomarède entry has a presumably spurious space before the colon in its title.
I suspect that the Toussaint entry is not properly formatted. This is a book-format work, yes? If so, it should be italicized. Also, you've given publication locations for all the other books in the Bibliography, so this one needs it, also. Additionally, this appears to be in French; foreign-language sources should have their language indicated.
The publisher location and language issues also apply to some of the Further Reading entries.
Naef needs an identifier of some sort (ISBN or OCLC). I believe this is ISBN978-3-7165-0250-1, but cannot be certain on my own.
I suspect that the volume number should directly follow the title here.
The decision to eschew citation templates is, of course, a matter of editor's discretion (although I think they would have been helpful for avoiding some of these problems). Neutral regarding promotion, as I have not evaluated the prose; in any case, nothing in my referencing quibbles should be taken as fatal to this candidacy. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is looking good; I've watched it grow since its beginning. I've made a few edits, gave the Baronne her own para (I miss that pic!), and another para break for the section about Bertin's hands, but don't worry about reverting if anyone disagrees. Third para in "Preparation and execution" lost its cite, so I noted that inline. I'm seeing a small bit of text squash too and in preview mode played around with moving the preparatory sketches to a gallery at the bottom of the "Preparation and execution". It didn't look too bad, so am putting that out as an idea. There'd probably be room to add another sketch too. It's interesting the see the process Ingres went through to get the right pose.
Support because these are minor issues. Nice job everyone and an interesting read - I haven't read it in about two or three years until tonight. Victoria (tk) 01:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Am toying with reducing text squash / reintruducing Rothschild. Not easy! Looking at the cite gap, but seems a matter of re-introducing.
regigged, with a gallery for the sketches and Rothschild returned. Thanks for the edits and comments, as always appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Absolutely gorgeous prose. Without a fair degree of historical knowledge, the first paragraph of the background section will not mean a lot to the reader unless they click through most of the links; what I admire about the writing is that it beautifully conveys the interesting nature of Bertin even to a reader, like myself, who doesn't understand the historical events and movements that are mentioned.
"They are similar in size; the Rogers version measures..." What is meant by "the Rogers version"? I'm assuming this is an art historian's shorthand for denoting one of the seven sketches, but most readers won't know that, nor would they have any idea why one sketch is singled out for naming. Nor do we know who Rogers is (though we can infer it from the caption to one of the images later on), and there isn't a link. Perhaps just "They are similar in size, around 35 cms square" or "One of the sketches measures 34.9 × 34.3 cm; the others are of a similar size". Also, should there be a conversion template to allow readers to see the dimensions in inches?
Great to see provenance has been covered.
The influence on the Vaughan Williams portrait is striking and an excellent comparison to have drawn attention to.
Thanks Hamiltonstone. I've dropped mention of Rogers in the text, and applied the conversion tempate. Agree re the inclusion of the Vaughan Williams series; one of Ewulp's additions; nice indeed. Ceoil (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised to see a commons link inline in the text; wouldn't it be normal practice to link to the en-wiki article on The Vow of Louis XIII and let that link to commons? I think this is discouraged in the MoS, and will try to find it if you're unaware of any such stricture.
"Ingres made drawings of the Bertin family, including a notable depiction of his host's wife, and sketches of their son Armand and daughter-in-law, Cécile. The portrait of Armand shows his physical resemblance to his father." In the given context, which is the 1832 portrait, this sounds as though these other sketches were done at this time as well. Per the captions that's not the case, so I think a "later" or something similar should be added to clarify.
The sentence beginning "The sitter for his 1848 Portrait of Baronne de Rothschild" seems to be a non-sequitur; the paragraph is describing Ingres' career "to that point", but this portrait is sixteen years later.
'In a version that Eugène Emmanuel Amaury Duval said was related to him by Bertin, Ingres noticed a pose Bertin took while seated outside with Ingres and a third man at a café. Bertin said that Ingres "came close and speaking almost in my ear said: 'Come sit tomorrow, your portrait is done.'" ' Are these events on the same day, as it appears? Surely not, if the pose in the portrait was inspired by the pose Ingres saw that day?
As related by Amaury Duval it was the same day. Ingres' comment to Bertin should be interpreted as "I've got it at last; come sit tomorrow, your portrait is as well as done". Ewulp (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now reads as "Bertin said that Ingres, confident that he had finally established the pose for portrait, "came close and speaking almost in my ear said: 'Come sit tomorrow, your portrait is [as good as] done.'"" Ceoil (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"also features a window reflection the pommel of the pope's chair": missing a word?
Does the Achermann portrait really add value to the article? It's in the manner of Denner, but Ingres was compared to Denner, not to Denner's imitators. I'm not saying it has to be removed, but with Achermann not mentioned at all in the text it's a little surprising to see it there.
Thanks Mike, but I'm happy enough to leave it out now. There is no direct reference to that painting, which is only "after" Denner. Ceoil (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Mark Oliphant, an Australian scientist who played a key role in the development of radar and nuclear weapons during World War II. He is credited with the discovery or co-discovery of deuterium, tritium, helium-3 and nuclear fusion. Regrettably, he is not as well known as he should be. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
FN1: I know this is the format that NLA gives, but it's redundant
A gnome went around creating {{cite DOI}} templates at one point. I wasn't happy, because they caused formatting problems, particularly with the author links. Replaced both with {{cite journal}}. And corrected the endashes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"heading a group at the University of Birmingham that included John Randall and Harry Boot, who created a radical new design": shouldn't that be "which", not "who", since it refers to a group? Or perhaps rephrase.
"and as such opposed to eating meat": I think this would be more natural as either "and as such were opposed to eating meat" or "and as such opposed eating meat".
The two paper titles listed in "Early life" differ in their capitalization conventions. I assume you're following the sources here, but I think it would be harmless to regularize them (and any later paper titles) to whichever version is standard on WP.
Regularised to title case. Caused by different styles among journals. MOS:CT is the standard in the MOS, which is just monstrous. And calls for title case. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On my screen the "coincidental" quote is not apparently indented because the image of the Cavendish Laboratory is to the left. How about moving Rutherford's lab image to the left, the Cavendish to the right, and the Poynting building to the left?
"He managed to not only convince the Americans that an atomic bomb was feasible, but inspired Lawrence to": I think "not only" requires an "also" later in the sentence.
"The establishment of a world-class nuclear physics research capacity in Australia was intimately linked with the government's plans to develop nuclear weapons. Oliphant was a staunch advocate of such research, declaring that Britain needed to develop its own nuclear weapons": can you clarify how a research institute in Australia supported plans for Britain's development of nuclear weapons? Were the two countries so closely linked constitutionally at that time that research for one was automatically to the advantage of the other?
To answer the last question first: no, they were not so closely linked constitutionally at that time, and were drifting ever further apart. While Britain postured that development of its own nuclear weapons was part of retaining its status as a Great Power, there was fear that the United States would show up late for the next war, as it had in 1914 and 1939. For Australia, the fear was of a repeat of the Pacific War, when an Asian power came bearing down on Australia and its South East Asian neighbours. So the two thought they were on the same page, but weren't. But they did need each other. The United States had cut off Britain's access to uranium from Africa and Canada, but Australia could supply its needs. It could also provide a nuclear test range. Australia hoped that Britain would supply it with the nuclear weapons that were developed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That clarifies it for me, but I think some indication of this should be in the article -- I've lived in both countries, and I didn't follow this, so I think most readers won't. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"he selected one of the capital's most striking designs, and oversaw its construction": it doesn't become one of the capital's most striking designs until completed, so perhaps "he made the final selection, and oversaw the construction of the capital's most striking designs"?
@Hawkeye7: FYI, the only thing I'm waiting on to support is a clarification in the article of the relationship between the UK's and Asutralia's nuclear policy -- as it's currently phrased I think it's confusing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
"today": There's a potential fight here over WP:DATED. Not my area of expertise.
They are all generated with the {{Inflation}} template, so will never become out of date, but to avoid giving the impression that they will, I tweaked the template so they now all say "equivalent to AUD$75,000 in 2015" (or whatever the sum is). The year is generated by the inflation template, and will always be the current year. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Permissions on the three gallery shots at the bottom of page: "My camera, my software and I created this work entirely by ourselves.)" This is an odd claim to have on photos of a sculpture and some plaques. That's a trivial concern. However, are these problematic images in therms of freedom of panorama?
the images released by the museum as cc by sa 2.0 are presumably owned by the museum, but not clear who actually took them.
A museum employee as part of their duties, so the Science Museum asserts copyright. It was released to us under the GLAM program. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hairsplitting, and I won't make an issue of it, but is "Atheist" a religion? (In the infobox)
"There is no God, and Dirac is His prophet." I think what happened was that someone removed the religion card from the template. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes heavy use of inflation adjustments for salaries, etc. As the template's documentation points out, its use should be restricted—money "means" different things at different times and in different situations, and a simple conversion based on the CPI can give a distorted sense of what these numbers "meant" in their times (for example, calculations based on CPI and on PPP can give widely different results).
She was called by her second name, Edith.: I'm not sure this is relevant, as she's never mentioned again, and an entire sentence on what she was called puts perhaps undue weight on what she was called.
Oliphant later recalled that Burdon "taught me the extraordinary exhilaration: this reads as "Oliphant taught me"—either the quote should be introduced explicitly as a quote, or "[him]" should be interpolated for "me".
per annum: again, I won't make an issue of it, but is there any reason to prefer "annum" to "year"?
It sounds very awkward, probably because "per" is Latin, so "per year' would be mixing the two languages. Everyone says "per annum". I think teacher would strike out "year" and write "annum" in red. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"in nuclear physics" sounds awkward. It would also mean two "in"s in close proximity, which would incline me to eliminate one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He was the first to conceive of the proton synchrotron: it might be a good idea to explain briefly what this is
"spend whatever was necessary to bring nuclear physics to Birmingham in a big way": quotes require attribution; is there some reason this shouldn't be paraphrased?
energy of tons of dynamite: given the colloquial use of "tons of", it might be better to reword to something like "several tons of". And shouldn't this be "tonnes" in AusEng?
as it was not government policy at the time to confer honours on civilians: as opposed to "was government policy ... not to confer honours"? The former sounds like they merely neglect to.
You might want to specify that the McCarran Act was an American act, and that the State Department was American—it could be read as Australia restricting Oliphant's travel
"that was the prevailing attitude of almost the entire white population of Australia until well after World War II": won't make an issue of it, but you might want to reconsider having removed the non-breaking space in "World War II" here. It's particularly ugly for the "II" to break at the end of a paragraph.
I'm not happy with the inflation templates, and I strongly recommend Hawkeye take a look into why they're an issue. I don't think it's a big enough issue, though, so I'll give this article my support. Curly Turkey¡gobble!02:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This was Ian Fleming's second stab at novel writing, following Casino Royale, which still hadn't been published at the time of writing. It's not Fleming's strongest book (or one of my favourite's either, come to that), but it laid some solid groundwork for his later books. A high-quality cast turned up for PR, both formal and informal, following a recent re-write of a 2011 GA. All comments and thoughts welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm still a little concerned about the length of your paragraphs in the Themes section, but your reply was sufficiently convincing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was among the peer reviewers. I had one remaining concern after the PR (I queried an attribution to Noël Coward) but I find on checking the biographies that my concern was unfounded. Happy to support this article. It is as well illustrated as imaginable given copyright constraints; the text is comprehensive but concise, well-proportioned, clear, highly readable, and has wide and thorough referencing. – Tim riley talk07:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Tim for your usual sterling work at PR which strengthened this admirably (as well as your later drug(s) advice!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SNUGGUMS
A commendable effort.....
In the lead (as well as "publication history"), "US" should probably read "United States" in full; not everyone is going to automatically know what those initials stand for. Also, is there any particular reason "London" is used as opposed to England when the other locations are given as countries?
London is given as a specific location and no-where else in Britain is mentioned, as opposed to the US, where the multiple locations, and Jamaica where the location is vague. - SchroCat (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In "background", try to be more specific than "early 1952"; a month would be more helpful. Also, "the journalist" isn't really needed.
I'll add "Between January and March", but I think it may be a bit over specific; I'm not sure about losing "the journalist" - it places him as a professional writer of sorts, (although not of novels). We need something there to give brief context. - SchroCat (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it's necessary to have "publication history" and "critical reception" under one combined section
In "publication history", I would place the time frame from "In October 1957 Pan Books issued a paperback version" towards the end
That might cause more problems than it solves: the first para is for the UK and Ireland, the second covers the US, so we'd then have to go to a third to cover the British paperback release, which is too short for a para. - SchroCat (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In "Critical reception", it seems vague to only state "the reviewer"; I'd include their names if available
In "adaptations", I don't think it's necessary to mention Sean Connery or George Lazenby since they didn't star in the film adaptation
This was added as part of the PR. I think the rationale is that we mention this is the eighth film, but Moore's first, so who did the previous seven. - SchroCat (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you did, though I fail to see how Connery and Lazenby are relevant to the film adaptation of this novel (as opposed to the ones they starred in) when they weren't included Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
London is used very limitedly as a locale for the novel — it is only CHAPTER II __ INTERVIEW WITH M. And is in the literary device of a flashback to ten days earlier to put into perspective the New York arrival and subsequent procedures for Bond in CHAPTER I __ THE RED CARPET.
The London we see is the distance from James Bond's flat in Chelsea, SW7, inner South West London, to a "gaunt high building" in Regent's Park, NW1, inner North West London, driven by Bond in his "grey Bentley convertible, the 1933 4 1/2-litre with the Amherst-Villiers supercharger."
Fleming does not say directly that London is covered in fog but writes, "He had turned on the twin fog lights and had driven gingerly . . " The London of Live and Let Die, such as it is when used as locale, is fog bound.
After arrival in NW1 the remainder of CHAPTER II is the briefing of Bond by M which is given as
"The British Secret Service agent James Bond is sent by his superior, M, to New York City to investigate . . . "
I'm not sure what your point is: we mention that London is a location. I've removed the quote you added - something so long is a copyright infringement I'm afraid (like many of the long quotes you've added to your talk page). - SchroCat (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a direct question from *SNUGGUMS – who had commended your effort – which I saw to take to answer.
Comments from SNUGGUMS
A commendable effort.....
"In the lead (as well as "publication history"), "US" should probably read "United States" in full; not everyone is going to automatically know what those initials stand for. Also, is there any particular reason "London" is used as opposed to England when the other locations are given as countries?" ( my bold fonting ) --Laurencebeck (talk) 04:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then next time could you please make it a little clearer that you are responding directly to him, othwise it looks like a comment to the nominator for action on the article. Thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I disagree about the US having to be rendered as "United States"; this is one of the things that pretty much any speaker of English learns within their first few years studying the language. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to support: I was an active peer reviewer, but as usual there are a few points which I either missed or which have arisen in the text since my review:
General: There should be hatnotes directing readers to the film and the song of the same name. Oddly, the first Google page when you search for "Live and Let Die" lists the film and the song but not the novel.
Lead: suggest reword "US sales, upon the novel's release a year later..." to " US sales, when the novel was released there a year later..."
Plot: "Mr Big decides to release Bond" is followed almost immediately by "Bond escapes". Seems contradictory
Plot: "Mr Big is smuggling gold by placing it in the bottom of fish tanks holding poisonous tropical fish." This does not seem to describe a smuggling method, unless something like "which he then ships abroad" is added to the sentence.
Background: The word "still" in second line seems redundant.
Background: "and then on to Jamaica" → "and then flying on to Jamaica"
Plot inspirations: Two marginally relevant images, facing each other and squeezing the text. If they were both significant to the article, well and good, but as it is I think I'd get shot of one.
Characters: a small point, but the phrase "come[s] across as" is repeated fairly closely
Characters: "his genuine liking for Jamaicans, who he saw..." I'd like Mr Riley's view on this, but "whom" seems more natural
"Whom" is certainly grammatically correct, though the informal use of the nominative doesn't bother me (just as "It is I" is correct but "It's me" is fine by me). Tim riley talk16:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Themes: "to protect America from the Soviets who are working through the Black Power movement" - suggest reword: "to protect America from Soviet agents working through the Black Power movement".
Friendship: This reads clumsily: "The more complete characters profiles created by Fleming more clearly showed..."
Publication history: I don't think we normally use the term "release" to refer to a book's publication – although I could be wrong.
Adaptations: As the film is only "loosely based" on the novel, I'm not sure it's necessary to summarise the film plot.
Nothing of great significance here. In general the article is tidily put together and I look forward to fully supporting when the necessary tweaks are completed. Brianboulton (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Nice work. Just as a matter of interest: the "adaptations" section refers to "the keel-hauling sequence", which is not specified in the plot section unless you are referring to Bond and Solitaire being dragged over the reef – which is not keel-hauling as I understand it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Brian. You're probably right on the keep hauling (which I understand is beng hauled under the boat, along the keel from one end to the other, rather than being dragged behind); the term came from the source that was cited, and which I unthinkingly used. I'll swap it out for something more accurate. - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I was unable to get to this as promised, but I have managed to have a read through today during a rare day off. This is a very highly polished article and it is worthy of FA status in my opinion. Owing to the distinguished visitors before me there is very little for me to nit pick. Great little article! CassiantoTalk17:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about... another commemorative for which there were high expectations, but it sold badly. It did make McKinley the first person to appear on two different U.S. coins, for whatever that's worth. They're worth a pretty penny today. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed this version. It looks good: well-written, comprehensive, etc. Two qualifications: first, I couldn't do source spot-checking as next to nothing is accessible for me (this fact, of course, makes the Wikipedia article particularly valuable); second, I'm as far from an expert in this subject matter as imaginable. Some very minor comments:
"With the aid of his close adviser Mark Hanna" - this other-FA drop made me chuckle ;)
"Ashbrook was willing, and the two men saw Treasury Secretary William G. McAdoo and Acting Director of the Mint Frederic Dewey, who saw no problem." - the double "saw" is a bit ugly - perhaps change the first to visited/met/similar?
"A hearing was held before Ashbrook's committee" - what was the committee? The preceding paragraph suggests he was no more than an ordinary congressman with no link to the matter other than that he was from McKinley's state; now it seems he was the responsible committee chair (or perhaps member)?
"Originally, the bill authorized 100,000 silver dollars" - a bill can't authorize anything until it becomes an Act, but maybe that is the pedantic lawyer in me speaking.
In Ashbrook's quote there is a double period after $100,000
"with the gold bullion necessary to be acquired in the open market" - to me, this would read better with "necessary" before "gold bullion" but your mileage may vary.
"Q. David Bowers, in his volume on commemorative coins..." - I took five shots at reading this sentence and can't quite figure it out.
"inaccurate and incompetently done" - did Swiatek and Breen give any examples of the inaccuracies? [I have to say, to the naked eye, there seem to be a couple that stand out].
They displayed a photograph. But then, Monticello looks much larger on the nickel than it really is.
Sorry, I overlooked this one, Mkativerata. It is to source the infobox. I have had the concern that the data in the infobox is not sourced in the article, so this is to take care of that. There's no really good way of doing this; it's either put the fn after the name or put it after every statistic.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "Distribution and collecting" section is a peculiar location for the McKinley portrait - I gather that it can't come earlier because of competing images?
I've rearranged them some but the bottom line is due to the infobox, compromises had to be made. I know have them at least close to where they should in a perfect world be.
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
"President McKinley was assassinated by Leon Czolgosz, who had anarchist leanings, in September 1901, and was succeeded by Vice President Theodore Roosevelt.": I commend you for avoiding "by anarchist Leon Czolgosz" and "by the anarchist Leon Czolgosz", both of which are common in journalese but indecipherable. But I still think this sentence tries to do too much ... and how far do we need to journey into this guy's mind to root out his intentions, in a coin article? Does omitting "who had anarchist leanings," work for you?
I've cut it.
I reduced the all-caps per WP:ALLCAPS, and added "in all capitals" at first occurrence for the sticklers, though I don't think it's strictly necessary; anyone who has a coin in their pocket can see for themselves, and it's the kind of thing copyeditors are derided for fretting over. I'm generally on board with MOS's advice these days ... and we're usually stuck with it at FAC whether it's good advice or not, so if this is a problem, let's talk about pros and cons and what it would take to get the guideline changed.
I really think small caps are the most effective and understandable way of conveying legends on coins. People have seen coins and that they are generally (mind, I said generally) in capital letters.
I agree with Wehwalt regarding the use of 'small caps'. I have used them in the my articles, and I find them to be the most effective at conveying what is actually written on the coins. Not everyone knows how U.S. coins are designed, so it's probably unclear to most whether or not capital lettering is used. If instead of "MCKINLEY DOLLAR", we say ""McKinley Dollar" (in capital lettering)", then how did we decide to capitalize "Dollar"? Coin inscriptions aren't mentioned in that section of the MOS, and in my opinion, that exemption should probably be codified.-RHM22 (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"AU-50": How about ", showing traces of wear,", and linking it to AU-50? And similarly for the other grades ... for instance, MS-66 could be "in a higher grade", or with more specific language if you like, linked to something that explains MS-66. - Dank (push to talk) 13:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added slightly-worn for the AU-50 and already had near-pristine for MS-66. Do you feel more is needed?
Support Everything looks good to me. I performed a light copyedit to correct some minor MOS issues, but the article looks just fine to me.-RHM22 (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mint Chief Engraver -is the capitalisation intentional here?
Yes. I generally capitalize "Mint" to mean the Mint an institution, following the practice of most numismatic writers.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"n which he advocated "sound money", that is, the gold standard unless modified by international agreement. This contrasted to "free silver", pushed by Bryan in his campaign.[3]" -seems a bit of a mouthful here, is it possible to rephrase and trim?
I am afraid we have to go into detail here to set up why they changed it from a silver dollar to a gold dollar. And I've become pedantic about how to represent McKinley's stand on this issue. I don't see much of a way around this.
House Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures -no article?
"Asked a question from New York Congressman James W. Husted as to whether a gold dollar would be too small to be a souvenir, Butler responded, "No; I do not think so. I think, on the other hand, a silver dollar might be too large. I think we can dispose of gold dollars very much easier. Mr. Husted, and you know gold dollars are rather scarce just now." -not sure you really need to quote here, I'd have partly paraphrased it.
My thought is that anyone who penetrates this far into the article is at least somewhat interested in numismatic history. So they will be interested in what was actually said. Add to that that this is not from a numismatic book, but from my own checking of congressional databases that people likely do not have access unless they have an academic connection, and I'd argue for keeping it. Same goes for the below, with additional comments as warranted.
Again with "On being told that the dies, per the legislation, would be at the Association's expense, Harding replied, "I did not notice that. Then, it essentially costs the Government nothing whatever to render this mark of tribute and assistance."
Per above, with the additional note that Harding is only really there because he went on to become president. What a president does or says is naturally a source of likely interest from the reader.
Link "dies" in the first instance and delink in "The act also required that the dies by destroyed".
Done.
""When Barber and Morgan collaborated—one doing the obverse and the other doing the reverse of the coin—the results were almost always oppressive. The McKinley Memorial dollars of 1916 and 1917 bear witness to these stylistic judgments, the unclothed bust on the obverse looking tastelessly Roman and the classical, colonnaded Memorial Building placed across a reverse further constricted by too much, too large lettering" -another long quote best paraphrased in part IMO.
I've cut it a bit, but I'd rather let the expert speak for himself rather than using a different form of words.
" "the Committee in charge apparently realized that the number of collectors in the country could not and would not absorb an issue of 100,000 coins at $3.00 each" and some 10,000 coins "were disposed of at a greatly reduced price to the 'Texas Dealer' [that is, himself] who in turn distributed them extensively among collectors of the country at a reduced price"" -and again.
In this case, we have the only prime actor in this drama who is known to have spoken about his role in it. I think the reader should hear what he has to say, not my characterization of it.
" A 1916 in MS-67 condition sold at auction in 2008 for $9,775" -do we know the auction house?
Sources: Bowers, Q. David (1992). Commemorative Coins of the United States: A Complete Encyclopedia. Wolfeboro, NH: Bowers and Merena Galleries, Inc. and Mehl, B. Max (1937). The Commemorative Coinage of the United States. Fort Worth, TX: B. Max Mehl. -no isbn numbers?
Got those (in one case OCLC)
Looks in good shape overall but I think you'd be better off paraphrasing a few of the quotes to improve flow and readability.♦ Dr. Blofeld07:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. I've shortened one of the quotes, but I think the need to give the reader the most information overrides. It's not like there's a lot of literature interpreting these events, it's all very hit and miss. Sometimes it's just best to give the reader the information, and not paraphrase or interpret it. Also, if you reviewed the sources (you commented on them), could you also label this a source review, for the benefit of the coordinator?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consider deleting final sentence of 3rd para in the "Background" , which has a faintly promotional tone.
I'm inclined to keep it. The reader deserves an explanation of why McKinley was having coins made for him.
There is something not quite right about: "Ashbrook agreed, stating: that my understanding is that these dollars..." I suggest: "Ashbrook agreed, and stated: "[M]y understanding..." etc
"duplicative of provisions in the Coinage Act of 1873" – could this be worded more simply, e.g. "duplicated provisions in"?
Support – Not that my support is needed: if there are many more people climbing on the bandwagon you'll have to fight them off with a stick. A model article, thoroughly meeting the FA criteria. Tim riley talk13:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the Susan B. Anthony dollar, one of the least popular coins ever struck for American circulation. In response to the Eisenhower dollar, another unpopular coin, the U.S. Mint began issuing a smaller dollar in 1979. It quickly became apparent that it would also not be accepted by the public, partly due to confusion caused by the similarity in size between it and the quarter dollar. Numismatists drew comparisons between the Anthony dollar and the twenty-cent piece, another failed coin which also caused confusion in commerce. I believe this article meets the criteria for featured status. Thanks to Wehwalt and Godot13 for supplying me with invaluable material, without which this article would have been impossible to write to its fullest potential. Thanks in advance for viewing and reviewing!-RHM22 (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LeaningSupport. This all looks very good. One omission I noticed was that you never mention the coin's derisive nickname, the "Carter quarter". Do you think it's worth including? There are some sources, just based on my quick Google search. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Coemgenus! I was initially hesitant to include that, because I was concerned that it might be too much negative wording, but I think you're correct; it was a common expression at the time. I've included it, along with some other information, in the 'Reception' section. By the way, another humorous moniker for the SBA dollar was the "J.C. Penny".-RHM22 (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent article that, IMO, easily meets the Feature Article criteria. So I can enthusiastically support its promotion. All I could find are a few meaningless nit-picks, but here are a couple suggestions. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Several proposals were proffered
It's a nit-pick, but those words are a bit difficult for me to read in such close procession.
I agree. I've changed it to "submitted", which is mostly the same thing.
Background
areas in which gambling was common.
Do you mean common or legal?
I'm not certain about this. I don't know whether gambling was legal in other places at the time, or if it was commonly practiced in those places. Most demand for the Eisenhower dollar came from the Nevada gambling lobby, of course.-RHM22 (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A provision was added requiring the coin to depict recently deceased President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the obverse and a design "emblematic of the symbolic eagle of Apollo 11 landing on the moon" on the reverse,[a] and President Richard Nixon signed the bill into law on December 31, 1970.[11]
I would put a full-stop after reverse, as this is a bit of a long sentence that might be trying to do a tad too much.
Both the obverse and reverse designs were executed by Frank Gasparro,
Maybe it's just me, but execute seems odd here. How about, "Both the obverse and reverse artwork was designed by Frank Gasparro", assuming the proper meaning is retained. Even better, "Frank Gasparro designed both the obverse and reverse artwork", though it's shifting the focus of the sentence away form the artwork and toward the artist. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be a bit hesitant to say "designed", because Gasparro based the reverse on the Apollo 11 insignia, which wasn't designed by him. I've changed it to "created", which I think conveys the correct meaning.-RHM22 (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and very few circulated in everyday commerce
"Everyday commerce" seems a bit odd; maybe: "and very few were circulated for commercial use".
Hmm. I'd be cautious here as well; the preparations weren't completed immediately. It actually took Gasparro several months to design the coin, not to mention other considerations. I'd prefer to keep the current wording, if it's acceptable to you.-RHM22 (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of colwidth
I think I've addressed this correctly, by adding the parameters that allow to the column width to format automatically to the standards set by the readers' browsers.-RHM22 (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Check that citations with multiple pages use "pp." not "p." - a couple of errors
Your periodicals are inconsistently formatted - for example, Bailey has publication title-publisher-volume but then Schwager has publication title-volume-publisher
I tried to fix it, but they still looking like that, and I can't quite figure out why. They seem to all be formatted the same, but Schwager and Stevens still don't have the volume and number in the same place as the others.-RHM22 (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a 2001 documentary film in which William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy discuss Star Trek and its effects on their lives. The article has undergone a copyedit by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, and has passed a good article nomination. I have searched through several journal databases to ensure that the sourcing of this article is comprehensive. It is unfortunate that Shatner's alleged flatulence is the most commonly discussed element of this film in the literature, but we must be true to the sources. Neelix (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll mainly focus on prose issues although I might check some of the references if there are any problems with them. I'm certain somebody else will check the more technical points to this article but for now I'll list what I see here... I reviewed this GAN when Leonard Nimoy was still alive :'( ☯Jaguar☯21:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"that Nimoy first publicly revealed that he had struggled with alcoholism while he was acting in Star Trek: The Original Series" - I think that Star Trek could be safely cut to avoid repitition of "Star Trek: The Original Series" in the lead, what do you think? I'm not too sure on this...
I have shortened the phrase to The Original Series. This solution retains the specificity while avoiding the wordiness. What do you think? Neelix (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The third paragraph in the lead could open on what overall critics thought about the film. For example something like "Mind Meld was recieved mixed/negative reviews from critics and fans..." etc?
Furthermore the reception paragraph in the lead mentions nothing on how the video quality was praised and the criticicms on the DVD functionality and features (which is mentioned in the reception section)
I have swapped this sentence with the one about Blame It on the Dog, thereby also de-emphasizing the flatulence topic. Neelix (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"They only mention one of these cast members by name: Nichelle Nichols, who portrayed Nyota Uhura" - is this refering to the Original Series cast or any of the six films?
"Nimoy had expressed concern about Kidd's alcoholism and warned Shatner about marrying her. Shatner says that he is conscious of his own mortality" - did he say this after Nimoy warned him of his wife? This sounds like a direct reply
"which offers such features as the Shatner and Friends fanclub's quarterly newsletter" - should this be "such as the" or is it comparing Shatner's website to the quarterly newsletter? Or is that newsletter part of Shatner's website? I'm confused!
Thank you for addressing them all Neelix! I think I was going to leave some more comments last night but having looked through the article again now (as well as seeing the improvements made) I think that those are most (if not all) of the glaring prose issues out of the way. Some of them were minor. I'm happy with the prose side of things, so I will support this transition from GA to FA. It's a good article, and I think it has a real chance of passing this FAC. I checked the references during the GAR and they all appeared to be formatted correctly. No doubt somebody else will check them over again, but in the mean time good luck! ☯Jaguar☯15:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Delegates please note that I have carried out a source review in the capped section below (including a couple spotchecks, but mostly not). —Cliftonian(talk)13:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*"in the 1960s science fiction television series Star Trek: The Original Series" seems a little repetitive. Perhaps "on television in Star Trek: The Original Series in the 1960s, and in the subsequent film franchise." As an aside—when did TOS start to be referred to as such? Was it not originally just called Star Trek?
"several of the other cast members in the series who disliked Shatner" perhaps "the several fellow cast members who disliked Shatner"? Also, is it widely accepted that these people did not like Shatner, or is it Shatner's own perception (or someone else's) that they did not like him?
We use the wording "struggled with alcoholism" twice in three lines, verbatim. I suggest mixing it up a little.
"a mind meld being a telepathic link" why not wikilink mind meld here?
Why do we use the word "flatulate" instead of simply saying Shatner (allegedly) farted? Seems overly delicate to me.
"Shatner denied this allegation." perhaps "Shatner has denied this allegation in multiple interviews."
"people who heard that the film includes the sound of Shatner flatulating" perhaps "people attracted by the alleged fart from Shatner"
Is the DVD cover shown the original DVD cover in the US, or what? I think "DVD cover" is a bit too vague a description myself.
Why not list the four producers on different lines? This would be in my opinion easier to read.
"The film focuses on the effects that the media franchise had on Shatner's and Nimoy's lives" What's a "media franchise"? We mean Star Trek as a whole?
"when Shatner is talking about the other Star Trek actors' dislike of him" again as above, is this just his opinion?
"including his fears regarding the legitimacy of consistently portraying an extraterrestrial and other struggles with his acting career at the time" we mean Nimoy, right? (Kirk is human?)
"after divorcing Zober in 1987 and marrying actress Susan Bay in 1988" perhaps "since" rather than "after"
"Shatner says that Star Trek was the reason for his divorce from Gloria Rand, his first wife" why?
"some of whom were Star Trek actresses" presumably he doesn't name names?
"He also talks about the death of his father, Joseph Shatner,[2] and of his third wife, Nerine Kidd, who accidentally drowned in a pool[6] in 1999[11] after struggling with alcoholism.[4]" why is this sentence chopped up with references like this? why not just put them all at the end, or combine them?
Why is sexual partner linked? Who doesn't know what that is?
In the first image caption, perhaps make clear that this picture is from the time of the original series. Also I'm not sure the wording "romantically involved" is appropriate as the prose refers to a "succession of sexual partners", which somewhat dissipates the romantic aspect of it in my mind. Perhaps "Leonard Nimoy(left) and William Shatner as Spock and Kirk in a 1968 photograph. In Mind Meld, Nimoy reveals that he struggled with alcoholism while filming The Original Series, and Shatner claims to have had sexual liaisons with several Star Trek actresses."
We say "The entire runtime of the film is taken up by Shatner's and Nimoy's conversation", but also describe Billy West providing narration. What narration does he provide?
We say a mind meld is "a telepathic link that Spock, a Vulcan, is able to create with other organisms" but if I recall correctly—it's been a long time since I watched Star Trek and I only really watched The Next Generation—isn't a mind meld something all Vulcans can do, as opposed to just Spock? (and isn't Spock only half Vulcan?)
"In an interview with the New York Post" when?
"You're the captain! You outrank him! It's your responsibility!" needs an inline citation directly after as it's a direct quote
Perhaps mention that Wil Wheaton played Wesley Crusher (curse him!) on The Next Generation
"That April" which April?
I would rearrange the "Reception" section a little. It seems odd to end on the note that the trailer was, we are told, hilarious.
No source is given for the film being 75 minutes long or for the cinematographer (Biggs) or editor (Pank).
Thank you very much for the review, John! I believe that I have implemented most of your suggestions. The exceptions are listed below, along with responses to the questions you asked:
I don't know exactly when the retronym Star Trek: The Original Series came into use; it may have been during the animated series years, or possibly not until Next Generation. Either way, I understand your point that this name is a retronym and I have removed it from the lead but have kept it in the body, where it is more difficult to remove due to the ambiguities that would arise as a result. Do you object to the use of this retronym in the body?
It is widely accepted that several of Shatner's fellow cast members did not like him. Do you feel that a footnote would be justified in order to identify the relevant individuals known to dislike him?
I would prefer to use the term "flatulate" in this article because "fart" seems to me to be unnecessarily vulgar, and not in the tone of an encyclopedia; the Flatulence article is not called Farting, which is, I assume, for this same reason. Nonetheless, if you feel strongly on the issue, I will switch the relevant words to "fart" and its derivatives.
In the sentence, "The film focuses on the effects that the media franchise had on Shatner's and Nimoy's lives," the reference is to Star Trek as a whole: the 1960s television series and the subsequent films in which they acted, but also the Star Trek conventions that arose and the sheer popularity of the Star Trek universe and its cultural impact.
I watched the film through again today, and Shatner does not name any of the Star Trek actresses with whom he had sexual liaisons.
I don't have a source for Biggs or Panik being the cinematographer and editor respectively, although they are listed in the credits of the film as having worked in those capacities. If that isn't sufficient, I can simply remove their names from the infobox.
I hope I have responded satisfactorily to your concerns. I appreciate your comments and would be glad to discuss any of these issues further. Neelix (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again David. I have copyedited the article a bit more and rearranged a bit; I hope this is all to your liking.
Regarding the retronym, how you have put it in the lead is fine. I have attempted a different solution in the body which I think works—"the 1960s television series (later retitled Star Trek: The Original Series)". I hope you are okay with this.
Regarding them not liking him, I think it is enough just to say they say in Mind Meld that others didn't like him. I've put that they "attest to other members of the Original Series cast disliking Shatner".
For Biggs and Panik, why not just source to the film credits themselves? Use Template:Cite AV media and put the time their names and roles are visible on screen.
Regarding "flatulate", I will call in another opinion from User:Dank, who I consider something of an authority on this kind of thing. I will defer to his judgement.
OK, Dan says we should stick to noun usages only and just use "flatulence". He also says "flatulence and flatulate are used more than they're needed in the lead, to the point where they become a distraction, and the incident is attributed to someone else's opinion in the lead, but not attributed in the text below the lead. (I'd probably do without the attribution, if you're careful with what you're asserting.)" —Cliftonian(talk)14:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your copy edits look great, John. I have added the citation for Biggs and Panik. I have also reduced the number of instances of the word "flatulence" throughout the article and removed all instances of the verb forms of that word. The word "flatulence" now appears only twice in the lead and six times in the body. Please let me know if you would recommend any further changes. Neelix (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I've just noticed my point for Biggs and Panik also applies for the four producers. Also I see the language of the film is given as "English". Are you really telling me not one word of Klingon is uttered in over an hour? ;) —Cliftonian(talk)22:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to see locations for the references. How is one to know "The Press" is a New Zealand paper and "The Province" is British Columbia? —Cliftonian(talk)00:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you requested the locations for the references, John; I don't think I had realized before how many different countries these sources are coming from. The locations have been added, as has the citation for the producers. And yes, sadly, no Klingon. :) Neelix (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again David. I hate to be pedantic but there are still some references without locations given. All the books, for example. Also, perhaps explain briefly that a tribble is a Star Trek in-joke. I'd never heard of them. Another thought—since the alleged flatulence sound is the subject of specific discussion in the article, could we perhaps put a sound clip in the article under a fair use licence? I think this would do better than the picture of Howard Stern, who is only tangentially relevant. It would improve the article a lot to actually be able to hear this noise we keep talking about. (For other reviewers: someone's already made clips here if you're interested in hearing this noise.) —Cliftonian(talk)07:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought to add an audio clip of the sound before. I think it improves readers' understanding of the subject considerably. Thanks for making the suggestion, John! The clip fits comfortably without removing the image of Stern, so I left it there. I have gone through the references again and I believe that they all now have locations; please let me know if I have missed any. I have also added a footnote clarifying what tribbles are, along with a new source that covers this information. The article improves each time you make suggestions, so feel free to make more! Neelix (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I've put the stuff about the egregious Wesley Crusher into a footnote if that's okay. Also looking at the source material myself I see Wheaton's troupe actually already existed at the time, so I've changed that. I've rearranged a little and done some copyediting. I hope this is all okay with you. I think the article looks good now and am happy to support above. Well done David and thank you for the nice change of pace. I hope you're doing well, and have a very happy Easter. —Cliftonian(talk)13:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the support, John! I apologize for having switched out the Crusher footnote before reading your comments here; you are correct that the troupe existed with the name "Mind Meld" prior to the film's release, and I appreciate your picking up on my error. I don't think the sentence works as a footnote, but we can discuss further if you disagree. Thanks again for your thorough review; the article looks much better as a result of your suggestions and copy editing. Neelix (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to offer some thoughts. I'm no Trekkie, but did watch a lot of Voyager (sorry) as a kid.
"An unintended sound in one scene of the film became a popular subject of flatulence humor among Star Trek fans and on morning zoo radio programs. Shatner denied being the source of this sound in multiple interviews; he and Mind Meld's director, Peter Jaysen, attributed it to equipment on set." This seems to come out of nowhere; perhaps you could open with something like "The film is remembered for..." or "The film attracted some notoriety" or something.
Direct quotes always need citations, even in the lead and image captions
Be aware of MOS:LQ- I changed one but self-reverted. I thought it better to leave it to you.
""It took me a while," he says, "but I got rid of all that anger when I realized that I never had to worry about work ever since Star Trek went on the air."[6]" Who's the "he", here?
"He developed "a major drinking habit, " How about a tense shift to "He had"?
"say this had repercussions" Similarly, how about "has had"?
"williamshatner.com, which offers features" How about "offered"? It doesn't really matter what it offers now, just what it did offer at launch.
"Shatner said that another reason they decided to make the film was because Nimoy was visibly getting old, even though Shatner is older than Nimoy by four days, both born in 1931." "even though" doesn't work here- Shatner being older than Nimoy has nothing to do with the latter looking old. Also, "both having been born"?
"Stan Lee's Mutants, Monsters & Marvels" Is this notable? Don't be scared of redlinks! Same for the production company.
"Howard Stern played the sound on his radio show several times,[2] including when Shatner appeared on the show on November 13, 2001,[29] to promote his upcoming television series Iron Chef USA.[14]" You need to lose the second comma. If you'd rather not have a reference without punctuation, just move both footnotes to the end of the sentence. (Hidden comments can clarify what is referenced to what, if necessary.)
"Shatner's website made a similar claim, attributing the noise to a squeaky jib." Websites can't make claims. How about "A similar claim was made on Shatner's website"
"O'Brien riposted" Too prosaic, for me.
"people interested in hearing Shatner's flatulence, a sound which Brown said can be clearly heard" This implies that the sound heard is Shatner. This seems non-neutral.
I think the Jim Dawson stuff belongs in the "Alleged flatulence" section rather than the reception section
Seems like a really nicely researched article. I was surprised how many details of one detail there were, but it was all well sourced. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your review and comments, Josh! I have implemented all of them except one: I didn't remove the second comma in the Howard Stern sentence because I believe that this portion of the Manual of Style suggests that it should remain. Please let me know if you disagree; I may be interpreting the guideline incorrectly. Feel free to also tell me if there are any of your concerns that I haven't adequately addressed, or if you have any more that you would like to voice. Neelix (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I offered poor advice: I meant the third comma, the one after "2001". If that is still required in the date formatting, then perhaps the sentence could be reworked to have the date at the end? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
they had with Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek, and with the several fellow cast members who disliked Shatner. - ambiguous; could mean Gene Roddenberry was the creator of Star Trek, or that they had trouble with Roddenberry, an unnamed creator, and cast members. Em or Endashes would probably work better.
I think the critical reception is too detailed in the lead.
No mention of TAS? They voiced the characters there, too, even though the TAS was retroactively considered non-canon.
accidentally drowned in a pool in 1999, losing a battle with alcoholism. - is the conflation really appropriate?
fascinating - good choice of words *raise eyebrow*
It was moving, Perry wrote, to see the two actors talk about their personal lives with such vulnerability—particularly when Nimoy discusses his experiences with alcoholism. - direct quote?
Thank you for the review, Crisco 1492! I implemented the dashes as you suggested, shortened the critical reception in the lead by removing the DVD Talk review sentence, added a mention of TAS, and reworded the Perry sentence so that it is clearer that the statement isn't a direct quotation. The sources conflate Kidd's death and alcoholism because Kidd drowned while intoxicated; please let me know if you feel that action is needed on this item. Neelix (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this for consideration as a Featured Article. It's already a Good Article and has had a good response from readers. The subject is an interesting one, and it may be a good candidate for the Main Page for the next Martin Luther King Day. It has already been through a FA review but unfortunately didn't attract enough interest from reviewers first time round, so this is a second try. Prioryman (talk) 08:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'African American' is supposed to be used as the noun, but hyphenated as 'African-American' when used as an adjective, as in African-American doctor.Parkwells (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very interesting, if depressing, article. I have the following comments:
"Black Americans employed as salesmen, entertainers, and athletes also found themselves traveling more often for work purposes" - "found themselves" is needlessly passive, and " more often" is unclear (more often than whom?). I'd suggest tweaking this to "Many Black Americans employed as salesmen, entertainers, and athletes also frequently travelled by car" or similar
The "Traveling while black" section would benefit from material explaining the extent to which the incidence of barriers varied across the country: it's stated that it was problematic everywhere, and implied that it was particularly bad in the south - can this be plainly stated?
Not to needlessly complicate things, but do we know for sure that it was only published annually? I know some books have multiple distinct print runs in a year, without revisions. Perhaps specify that new editions were published annually? -- Zanimum (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Searching Google Scholar produces some interesting-looking results [45] which haven't been used as references - were you able to consult these? Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, I've not seen some of those sources before. I've got some useful material from one of them and will see if there's anything worth using in the others. Prioryman (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please ping me when you've finished drawing on the sources? I'm strongly leaning towards support, and will do so once the expansion process is complete. Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you've done a terrific job on this, and expanding what I remember of the article from an earlier time. I share the concern expressed by Carrite in 2013 about how the Mallard lynching in GA is presented, and really don't think it belongs in this topic. I think saying it is part of the general risk of DWB is an overstatement. The mob knew where Mallard was for the evening and where they could intercept him. It was a local lynching expressing local tensions. Yes, they attacked him in his car, but I don't think it makes the case for general risk of lynching when blacks were traveling by car. Sadly, blacks in the South faced the risk of lynchings at all times; and studies had earlier shown that many lynchings came out of competition and envy - social control. The article Carrite referred to is well documented and shows how the events were part of local issues.Parkwells (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still looking into this; the way it's presented in the article corresponds with how it's treated by one of the sources on the Green Book. If there's a clash between sources then I'll need to work out how to deal with that. Prioryman (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Parkwells: OK, having had a look at this I think I'll leave it out. The sources do seem to contradict each other and without any indication of which is the more accurate, it's best to omit it. Prioryman (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support An utterly fascinating topic. I found it interesting how the entire basis of race relations can be so clearly illustrated through a book about motoring. My only concern, and it's a minor one, is that there are a lot of long paragraphs. These can be hard to read, and you might want to consider breaking some of them up. I did one such edit, check it and see if you think it improves things. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, since most concerns above seem to have been addressed. As Maury points out, it's an amazing microcausm of larger race issues. I'd personally keep the Mallard reference, but then I don't think the article would be deficient without it. That's just my peripherally informed opinion. (I don't personally find any of the paragraphs long for an encyclopedia.) -- Zanimum (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why I didn't support after my concerns were addressed last time, but I do now. A couple of things, though:
I still think "minefield" is unencyclopaedic vocabulary.
I think it's perfectly defensible as a description - it highlights the arbitrary and unpredictable nature of the problems which black travelers faced. Prioryman (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe "Black" is normally capitalized when it refers to race
Foster, Hall, Ramsey, and Young Armistead: these should have a JSTOR/doi/ISSN/OCLC number. Doesn't matter which, I think, but one of them would be useful.
It seems to have disappeared from the website. Oh well, the link's not important anyway; it was a web version of a paper article and we still have the page number and month of publication, so that should be fine. Prioryman (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the lede: do you need the citations there? The theory, generally, is that anything in the lede is already covered in greater detail in the main article text, so there's no need to cite it twice. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, everything seems to have been resolved. One thing I'd note is that the way you did the JSTOR links is fine, but another way (which I find easier) is to use the "jstor=" field in the citation template. That way, you only have to enter the number, not the whole url. But the way you did it is fine, too. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Radiocarbon dating has revolutionized archaeology, and the invention of the method earned Willard F. Libby a Nobel Prize. I've been working on the article for over a year, and I think it's now ready to be nominated here. It's benefitted from a peer review, where several editors helped improve the article; I would particularly like to thank Aa77zz and CorinneSD. Since then it's been copyedited by Eric Corbett. Three professional archaeologists have looked over the article, including one who specializes in the topic, and their comments have been addressed. The article is a departure from my previous nominations, which have all been in the humanities; I would like to make it clear that I have no special expertise in this area and wrote it as a layman. I hope you find the topic as interesting as I do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As Mike mentions above, I took part in the peer review. This is an important article and Mike has done a fine job in bringing it up to the FA standard. Aa77zz (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The licensing for the lead picture is a little all over the place. Basically, we need to work out whether, as far as the English Wikipedia is concerned, the image is PD or non-free. If it's PD, it's going to need a careful explanation of the fact (along with the removal of the non-free tags); if it's non-free, its use in this article fairly clearly fails NFCC#8. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry I missed the peer review. On a quick look, I think the article gets too scientific too quickly, and some of the sections at the bottom should precede the formulae etc, which will just lose a high % of readers, In particular, the explanation of how radiocarbon dates should be reported should be much higher up, before all the various factors are gone into. People who won't want to read about the physics want to know what the complicated notation of reported dates means. The full length of the lead is not used, and there maybe a case for a summary section after that. A clear statement of the current understanding and practice early on would be good. At the moment much of the article recapitulates the theory as it has developed. It's a bit late now I realize, sorry. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to changing the organization, and even withdrawing the FAC if necessary, to get it right, but for a big change like this I'd like to see consensus that it's necessary, and with two supports, and Eric's comment below, I'd be hesitant to act on your comment just yet. Though it's probably worth noting that both Eric and AA77zz have technical backgrounds (or so I understand). Perhaps other editors with a humanities background will weigh in. Re the lead: anything in particular you feel is missing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that one of the paras was pretty short. I don't think all the article sections are summarized yet. I also notice that it is not clearly stated at the start that it can only be used for organic materials - easy to fix. Johnbod (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added a sentence about sample form to the shortest lead paragraph. I thought about mentioning the fact that there are separate marine and southern hemisphere calibration curves, but it's hard to do that without any explanation. I think every section is at least represented in the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overall this is a remarkably readable discussion of a fairly technical topic. Nice job! I made a small number of text edits. I have a few picky comments/questions:
In the Principles section, last paragraph: you say these "have not been calibrated", but presumably that just means using Libby's value for the half-life and doesn't refer to the calibrations for variations in historical 14C/12C ratio discussed below?
It does mean that it has not been calibrated using the historical variation in ratio. Note 2 is intended to clarify this - part (e) is equivalent to saying that there is no calibration. I put it in a note because the definition is a little long to be placed parenthetically, but perhaps I should move it up to a box? As I understand it, the reason to include fractionation in radiocarbon years but not calibration is that calibration curves can vary, and if you want to apply a different calibration curve (e.g. a later INTCAL curve) to data in a paper you're reading, you want the uncalibrated age to apply the curve to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the PDB standard has an anomalous carbon ratio, how/why did it become the standard of comparison?
I haven't seen this covered anywhere. I imagine it could be found by chasing a trail of paper references, but Taylor and Bar-Yosef, which is by far the most detailed history, don't even provide a cite for it. I've done some searching (I have JSTOR access) but couldn't find anything. Is this needed for the article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found this which indicates that Urey developed the PDB standard as part of his palaeotemperature work on oxygen isotope ratios. Presumably the PDB standard was then adopted for radiocarbon dating because the isotope ratios of the formation were well known. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mention the apparent ~400yr age for marine life twice and give an average of 440yrs once, with different citations each time.
"The deepest parts of the ocean mix very slowly with the surface waters, and the mixing is known to be uneven." - I'm usually against the "I never go outside, so I challenge your claim that the sky is blue" types of arguments, but when you use the phrase "known to be" that seems to merit a cite at the end of the sentence (or just delete the phrase).
In measuring the freshwater effect, you write that one usually just measures a modern sample. Does that mean changes in groundwater flow patterns that vary exposure to old-carbon rocks are rare enough to be negligible?
That's certainly the implication. I looked at a more recent source and was able to find a discussion of this; it's apparent that testing a modern sample is not best practice, so I changed this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hydroxyproline was thought to a reliable indicator of what? I don't quite follow this - it's a major constituent of collagen, but if you have a sample that you know contains collagen, what do you need hydroxyproline to indicate? Is this referring to identifying a sample as collagen-containing in the first place?
There are problems with dating degraded collagen because it's possible that it could have been contaminated by more recent organic material. One way to confirm that the material you're looking at is original is to verify that the ratios of amino acids are correct; that tells you that you're looking at a sample that is essentially the same composition as the original bone. If hydroxyproline is only found in bone, then separating it and testing only that would be safe because it would eliminate contaminants. I'm thinking that perhaps this should just be cut; since it's been found in groundwater it's no longer that important, and it may be too detailed an issue for this article, which is a summary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, the modern contaminant is presumably not collagen. "A reliable indicator of purity" or "indicating the absence of modern contamination" or similar would make this clearer, though if it's not a current technique removing it is probably better. (I would not have guessed you'd find hydroxyproline in groundwater, but following the links suggests the type deposited in silica is chemically distinct from the hydroxyproline in animal collagen; this is totally off-topic, but I wonder if they can be distinguished to avoid this problem?) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HOxII is oxalic acid, right? Any reason not to wikilink this?
I didn't because it's really the name for the standard, and I thought it might be slightly misleading. I could avoid this by slightly expanding the sentence if you think it's worth it -- e.g. "The most common standard sample material is oxalic acid, such as the HOxII standard..." if you think it's worth it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the expanded version would be useful. I didn't know what it was, so I googled it and found all kinds of stuff about a particular hox gene.
That did make me think of another question, though - why oxalic acid as a standard when the test materials are converted to benzene, graphite, etc? Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find out why oxalic acid was chosen. Taylor and Bar-Yosef say that the original standard was prepared in 1956 at the request of James Arnold, so it was specifically for radiocarbon. I did find this discussion, which mentions that oxalic acid has some disadvantages. I can't find any publications from the NIST (or NBS as it was then) that explain it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Opabinia regalis: FYI, I contacted R.E. Taylor, one of the authors of the most recent specialist book on the history of radiocarbon dating, and he said that he believed it was because there's a high oxalic acid content in beet leaves compared to other plants, and Arnold knew the year of growth of the batch of beets that would be tested. Taylor also said he understood the extraction of oxalic acid is straightforward, though he also has heard that the extraction had to be redone because of some errors. Anyway, he's planning to check on these questions the next time he's at UC San Diego and can look at James Arnold's papers. That won't give me a source, of course, but if he puts it in a note I can use that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! I guess they had decided on oxalic acid and then went with beets instead of having a convenient pile of beets and going with the easiest chemical. You are going way above and beyond on the investigations here :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"one archaeologist" - any reason not to name this person? This reads strangely with Taylor prominently mentioned in the same paragraph and quoted in the one before.
On the structure question mentioned above: I think the current order of presentation works well, especially since the TOC headings are clear and can direct the reader past the details if they don't want to read everything. My only (subjective, not really actionable) comment here is that the article seems to end abruptly. The last two paragraphs of the Impact section don't seem to connect well to the preceding discussion. I think an example or two of real archaeological data - not pop fluff like the Shroud of Turin - would help bring things together. Maybe the last paragraph could be split into its own subsection.
Thanks for the review; I should have time this evening to work on these points. One quick note about images: I haven't come up with anything for a lead image; I would love to get a free picture of Libby for the lead, but can't find one. It's not a subject that lends itself well to photographic illustration. If I add a discussion of an archaeological use of radiocarbon dating, as you suggest (and I agree that's a good idea) then perhaps a picture of the dig or location would work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few comments above but am out of time this morning. I should have a little more time tonight and will do more. I'm away from my sources for a week starting tomorrow, and will probably have very limited access to the internet, so I may not be able to do much more until about 3/22. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Opabinia regalis: I've responded to all but your final point, and in regards to that I think it would be worth giving a more detailed example of a significant real use of the technique in archaeology. Taylor & Bar-Yosef give lots of examples and I'll pick something they highlight. However, I won't be able to do much on this for a week as I'll be skiing in Colorado. I'll have an iPad, but limited internet and none of my references. More when I return. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting examples! A question on the first one: I read skimmed both Pleistocene and Holocene and I'm still unclear as to how the boundary was defined in the first place, other than that ice locations are involved - which makes the matter of identifying the date somewhat opaque. Is this possible to clarify briefly?
I don't know about briefly! Here's the explanation -- tell me if this is something you'd like to see in the article. The boundary is defined by tracking the δ18O ratio; that is, the ratio of 16 O to 18 O. Higher temperatures put more 18 O in the atmosphere (from evaporation) and so precipitation in warmer times has higher δ18O. Ice cores from Greenland can be used like tree rings to produce a graph of δ18O over time. If you look at page 4 of this book you'll see a graph showing an unmistakable sharp change in climate at 11,650 ± 99 cal BP. That's the Pleistocene-Holocene boundary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I went with "Establishing the date of this boundary − which is defined by sharp climatic warming − as accurately as possible has been a goal of geologists for much of the 20th century." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And a question on the second one: the Dead Sea Scrolls article says they're the second-oldest Bible manuscripts, but also has sections tagged as outdated. Is there a subset of the Dead Sea Scrolls that have previous versions, or is the other article wrong? I'd be tempted to trim the last couple of sentences of the dead sea scrolls paragraph ("some scholars" vs "most scholars" etc...) - it sounds like there's more controversy than can be stuffed into a couple of sentences without losing detail.
I cut the last sentence. That part of the controversy is essentially theological, or at least ideological, and is not really a scientific debate; I put it in as an indication that these measurements don't always settle the issues in everyone's eyes, but I don't think that's really necessary. People can follow the links (or go read the Shroud of Turin article) if they want more details. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This could go either way but I think the examples would fit more naturally after the general "impact" section, with maybe the last paragraph split off into a separate section ("other dating methods" or similar?). Not a strong preference though. Have a good vacation! Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to leave the examples where they are, unless you feel strongly about this. I think one benefit of the examples is that they set up the reader for a better understanding of how dramatic an impact radiocarbon dating can have on an archaeological debate, so having the impact section follow the examples seems right to me. @Opabinia regalis: I think I've now replied to all your comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am more familiar with the term carbon-14 dating, which is the title of the Britannica article ("Carbon-14 dating, also called radiocarbon dating"). I would suggest adding this alternative name.
"For more than a decade after Libby's initial work, the accepted value of the half-life for 14 C was 5,568 years; this was improved in the early 1960s to 5,730 years." I think revised (or corrected) would be a better word than improved.
"It is possible to incorporate a correction for the half-life value into the calibration curve, and so it has become standard practice to quote measured radiocarbon dates in "radiocarbon years", meaning that the dates are calculated using Libby's half-life value and have not been calibrated." I had to read this several times but I think I now understand it. So "radiocarbon years" does not correct for different levels of C14 in the atmosphere at different periods and also adopts the wrong figure for the half-life which was current in the 1950s? Would not the statement that the use of radiocarbon years is standard only apply in technical papers on C14 dating? The only time I remember coming across it was in a case I recently raised with you. BTW I once complained to an expert that I find the mixture of calibrated and uncalibrated years in the Wiki articles on the Dryas ice ages confusing, and he replied that it is worse than that as in some papers it is not clear whether they are giving calibrated or uncalibrated figures.
Yes, you have it exactly right. I'm not entirely sure I know what you mean by "technical papers on C14 dating" -- do you mean any scholarly paper that mentions radiocarbon dates, or specifically papers about the mechanics of dating? The former is true, as far as I can see -- the journal Radiocarbon's recommendations are intended to apply to any paper that reports radiocarbon dates. Not that eveyone follows the recommendations, as your friend pointed out. The reason the recommendation is always to give uncalibrated (i.e. radiocarbon) dates is that a reader can then apply a different (e.g. later and presumably more accurate) calibration curve and derive a calendar date from an old paper. Does that answer your question? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are two points here. 1. As I said, I had to read the sentence several times before I was clear what it meant. I think it could be more clearly expressed. 2. When I referred to "technical papers" I meant that only experts understand "radiocarbon dates" and would be able to adjust them according to their own views. The vast majority of people would take the term to mean a true date determined by C14 dating. For example, Pettit and White's The British Palaeolithic is a summary of the state of knowledge for professionals in the field, but it uses calibrated dates throughout - as it is directed at archaeologists, many of whom would presumably not understand radiocarbon dates and take them as true dates BP. Your statement that the recommendation is to always use radiocarbon dates can only apply to papers directed to experts who understand them, not to the wider community of archaeologists who use them in their work without understanding the technicalities, let alone the wider interested public. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To your first point, how about " It is possible to incorporate a correction for the half-life value into the calibration curve, and so measured radiocarbon dates can be quoted in "radiocarbon years", meaning that the dates are calculated using Libby's half-life value and have not been calibrated. As a result, when a date is quoted, the reader should be aware that if it is an uncalibrated date it may differ substantially from the best estimate of teh actual calendar date." The second sentence, I hope, clarifies things; I also changed "standard practice" to "can be quoted" to address the fact that Radiocarbon's recommendations are not universally followed. Re point 2: Pettit & White say on page 9 "Reimer et al. suggest that where calibrated dates are used original radiocarbon measurements on which they are based should also be cited. We do this where we think it is necessary, but in the interests of space do not make a habit of it. We cite references to the publications in which the original radiocarbon measurements were presented and thus, where we do not present original measurements in tables or text, readers, should they wish, may follow a trail back to original sources and check the accuracy of our calibration". I think this can be taken to indicate that you're right that it's at the discretion of the author. Spot checking elsewhere suggests to me that articles that give original research on dating or which provide the first dates for samples are more likely to give uncalibrated dates, but where the author is using someone else's data he only gives the uncalibrated date when there's a reason to do so. Does the change I propose above address your concerns? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"It is possible to incorporate a correction for the half-life value into the calibration curve, and so measured radiocarbon dates can be quoted in "radiocarbon years", meaning that the dates are calculated using Libby's half-life value and have not been calibrated." I still find this puzzling. I am not sure you ever fully explain "calibration curve", but I take it that it is a line on a graph of years against C14 values derived from a sample of known age - eg from tree rings. "a correction for the half-life value" presumably means adjusting the date to agree with the wrong 1950s half-life, but it seems an odd way of putting it. How about something like "Dates can be given which are calculated using Libby's incorrect 1950s value for the half-life of C14, and also without calibrating for changes in the proportion of C14 in the atmosphere at different periods. This allows experts to apply their own views about the correct values for calibrating C14 dates. These are called "radiocarbon dates" or "uncalibrated dates", whereas true calendar dates are "calibrated dates"." BTW you seem to have forgotten to change "standard practice" to "can be quoted".
I hadn't made the full edit I thought I did; sorry. I've done so now. I'll think some more about your suggested wording; I don't like "true" as an adjective, but I see what you're getting at. Does the calibration section of the article give sufficient detail? I deferred the explanation of the curves to that section, thinking it would be too complicated at this point in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still find this sentence confusing, although I agree that your "best estimate of the actual calendar date" is better than my wording (which in any case you can no doubt improve). Also it is not clear when you refer to radiocarbon years and uncalibrated dates that they are synomyms. (I assume they are - until I read this article I assumed that uncalibrated just meant not calibrated for changes in C14 levels, not a wrong figure for the half-life.) Note 2 is against the best estimate of the actual date, and so it is not clear what "also" refers to. A further point is that I think that as a general principle an article should always explain a technical term like calibration curve the first time it is used, as otherwise the reader cannot be expected to know what you mean. Basically I think that you are explaining a key point here which needs to be explained in simple language for the non-expert. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this needs to be clear, and I'm happy to keep working on it; I can see it's a confusing point. I've expanded the discussion; let me know what you think. If this is not enough, then perhaps it would be best to just cut the whole paragraph -- which I think I originally intended to be an aside to the reader, to let them know complications were coming -- and defer the discussion of radiocarbon ages to the calibration section instead. That way the information comes at a point where it is natural to explain it a little more slowly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This seems much clearer, except that it is still not spelled out whether radiocarbon years and uncalibrated dates mean the same thing. I think you need to explain terms when they are first used, so you cannot cut the whole paragraph unless you avoid referring to radiocarbon years and calibration curves until they are explained. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"sea organisms have a mass of less than 1% of those on land" - no change needed but I find this amazing.
Me too. I checked the source (it's viewable in Google Books if you're curious) and confirmed it; it shows marine biota at 3 billion tonnes of carbon, and land vegetation at 615 billion tonnes. I guess there are large areas of the deep sea that are effectively deserts, whereas most of the land has vegetation of some kind or another. And sea vegetation never reaches the mass that trees do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"To verify the accuracy of the method, several artefacts that were datable by other techniques were tested; the results of the testing were in reasonable agreement with the true ages of the objects. In 1958, Hessel de Vries was able to demonstrate that the 14 C/12 C ratio had changed over time" This is unclear. Did early tests suggest that C14 does not vary, which were disproved by de Vries? If so this should be clarified. (I once read that doubts were first raised due to discrepancies between the known dates of ancient Egyptian artefacts and C14 dates, but maybe this is a myth.)
This got me digging and I discovered that the sentences you quote include some material that predates my involvement with the article. I was evidently not very careful when I switched citations; the citations I give support a date in the 1960s, not 1958. The 1958 date comes from "Münnich KO, Östlund HG, de Vries H (1958). "Carbon-14 Activity during the past 5,000 Years". Nature 182 (4647): 1432–3. Bibcode:1958Natur.182.1432M. doi:10.1038/1821432a0" which I haven't seen and don't have access to. I'll see if I can get hold of a copy and get back to you on this. However, to answer your question, the initial investigations did not use objects of precisely known age, and since the error bars were fairly broad on the early dates, it wasn't clear there was a problem. De Vries and others worked on getting 14 C dates from tree rings since it was clear that would validate the results; and in addition, as you say, discrepancies were becoming apparent with Egyptian chronologies. Assuming that the Nature article cited supports what's stated in the article, I'll add it as a citation, and then for clarification how about this: "To verify the accuracy of the method, several artefacts that were datable by other techniques were tested; the results of the testing were in reasonable agreement with the true ages of the objects. Over time, however, discrepancies began to appear between the known chronology for the oldest Egyptian dynasties and the radiocarbon dates of Egyptian artefacts. Neither the pre-existing Egyptian chronology nor the new radiocarbon dating method could be assumed to be accurate, but a third possibility was that the 14 C/12 C ratio had changed over time, and this was demonstrated in 1958 by Hessel de Vries." Though I'm not sure why later sources only talk about de Vries and don't mention his co-authors. Anyway, I'll get back to you on this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have now seen the Nature article and it definitely does not support de Vries as the person who verified that the ratio had varied historically, so I've modified that section to go with the other sources I have. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So tree rings provide a check on the level of atmospheric carbon back c 14,000 years. How do they check it in earlier periods? Ice cores?
The INTCAL13 article lists plant macrofossils, speleothems, corals, and foraminifera as data sources, in addition to tree rings. I could add something to this but I was thinking this sort of detail would go better in the subarticle on calibration. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why mention the C3 and C4 pathways when you do not say there is any difference in their C14 uptake.
C4 plants have higher (less negative) δ13C values. I think the details were originally in the article and were moved to the subarticle on dating considerations. Do you think I should remove the reference to C3 and C4 completely, or mention that there's a difference? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It depends how significant you think it is. I think you need to go into more detail or delete.
Apologies if I am showing my ignorance, but in the Isotopic fractionation equation, does not multiplied by 1000 parts per thousand mean multiplied by 1?
I think I see now. I was thinking 5x100%=5, so why does not 5x1000 parts per thousand=5, but you mean times 1000 with the answer in parts per thousand.
Some further comments above - others below on the rest of the article.
What is the fossil-fuel effect?
It's defined in the atmospheric variation section; it refers to the effect of burning fossil fuel over the last 120 or so years; a lot of old carbon has been released into the atmosphere, lowering the 14 C/12 C ratio. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1970, the British Museum radiocarbon laboratory ran weekly measurements on the same sample for six months. The results varied widely (though consistently with a normal distribution of errors in the measurements), and included multiple date ranges (of 1σ confidence) that did not overlap with each other. The extreme measurements included one with a maximum age of under 4,400 years, and another with a minimum age of more than 4,500 years." Have not methods improved so much over that 45 years since then that this is no longer relevant?
The point is not that their measurements were accurate: the reverse is true, in fact -- the experiment is a demonstration that ordinary statistical variation will often given you results outside the 1σ confidence range. It's intended to make it clear that a 1σ range of e.g. 11,300 to 11,000 BP doesn't mean the date was definitely in that range. I've rephrased to try to make this clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"published in 1998, and updated in 2004, 2009, and, most recently, 2013" - recentism!
The source for dendro dates going back 13,900 years says that this applies to the northern hemisphere. Do you know how far they go back in the southern one, and whether southern C14 dates are less accurate as there are not so many sources of absolute dates for comparison?
I don't, and I'd have to dig into the papers to find this out. The 1σ errors on the INTCAL curves give a feel for the accuracy of the curve; if I wanted to compare the accuracy of the curves I would probably look at the difference between the size of the error bars at various dates. Do you feel a note on this is necessary for this article? If I had the data I'd probably put it in the calibration subarticle rather than this one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It appears they are not significantly less accurate. I was able to find a recent (2014) paper that says "Although the 14C calibration curves from the Northern Hemisphere (NH) and SH are broadly similar, there are subtle differences between the structural forms of each curve"; I don't think it's worth adding a comment on this since it would say little more than "the curves are not identical", which is already apparent from the fact that there are two curves. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are there cases where wiggles in the curve mean that a particular C14 ratio can mean two alternative calibrated dates? (I see in the Dead Sea Scrolls discussion that there are. It might be worth covering this.)
I think this is an important point which needs be in there, and you do briefly explain it in the Dead Sea Scrolls section. I would move that explanation to the relevant place above, rather than mention it in passing here. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"the bitumen's radiocarbon age will be greater than is measurable by the laboratory" I do not understand this. As bitumen is a form of petroleum, would not all C14 have disappeared millions of years ago?
Yes, so it wouldn't be measurable -- past 50,000 years old is "infinite age", and millions of years is the same as a hundred thousand. Measuring organic material contaminated by bitumen applied when the sample was deposited would give the wrong age. I've rephrased to clarify. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two Creeks Fossil Forest. The Holocene started, as you say, around 11,700 years ago, the end of the Younger Dryas. So how does the Valders ice readvance, presumably at the start of the Younger Dryas, help to determine the start of the Holocene? Ah the date of the fossil forest is given as 13,730 to 13,550 cal BP, well before the start of the Younger Dryas c.12,900 BP, so apparently it is nothing to do with the YD. I am confused.
Looking at the case study it's apparent that the readvance was known to be of short duration, so dating the forest would give a reasonably close marker for the end of the Pleistocene, because the readvance was known to be the last before the end of the ice. Before the radiocarbon dating the fossil trees were dated to 19,000 to 24,000 years ago by stratigraphic methods. So an accurate date for the forest pinned down the ice readvance date, and since that did not last long, it helped pin down the start of the Holocene too. I don't know if the Valders readvance is associated with the YD; I don't see that in the discussion in Taylor & Bar-Yosef, but it may be the case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It can only have been one of many steps in dating the start of the Holocene and its relevance is unclear. I would delete. If you want an example of an interesting controversy, how about the re-dating of the end of the Neanderthals, which you refer to? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I picked this because it's one of the case studies Taylor & Bar-Yosef chose, and I felt that it was good to have a secondary source validating that this really is an important study. I'm not sure I understand your concern -- the source is unequivocal that the Two Creeks forest is a key part of Pleistocene/Holocene boundary dating in North America. They say: "The period during which the readvance and destruction of the Two Creeks forest occurred became identified as one of the terrestrial geological markers documenting events associated with the end of the Pleistocene". I agree that this would have been just one of many studies identifying the boundary; the overall definition of the end of the Pleistocene presumably required scores of results to be assimilated into a single picture of the global changes. That would apply to any result I could cite, though. Would it help if I clarified in the text that this was only one of the studies that are relevant to the boundary definition? The source doesn't say that, but I think it's uncontroversial enough to not need a separate cite. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to the quote the period - not the ice advance itself - is one of the markers associated with the end of the Pleistocene. This seems to me vague to the point of vacuity, not identifying Two Creeks as a key marker of the end. And no wonder as it was 2000 years earlier. Maybe we just have to agree to disagree on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you say at the beginning of the paragraph, the Pleistocene ended around 11,700 BP. You give a date for Two Creeks as 13,730 to 13,550 BP. My point is that I do not see how an ice advance c. 13,700 BP is key in determining the date of an ice retreat around 11,700 BP, 2000 years later. It tells you that the transition must have been later than 13,700 BP, but it does not give any evidence whether the Pleistocene ended 12,000 BP or 6000 BP. If Two Creeks disproved a generally accepted date for the end of the Pleistocene of, say, 20,000 BP, then it would have been a step in determining the date, but in that case you would need to explain the context, which you have not done. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you have time, would you take a look on Google Books at Nature's Clocks by Doug MacDougall? Pages 91-97 discuss Two Creeks in detail, giving the history and importance of the site in dating glacial chronology. The bar chart included there leaves no doubt that the site is regarded as a critical marker of the end of the Pleistocene, and one of the most important radiocarbon results in geology. I understand your comment about the date only providing a terminus post quem, but it seems that's exactly what the importance of the site is -- it dated "the last surge of Wisconsin glaciation" and showed that it was thousands of years later than had been previously supposed. Is the problem that the article doesn't reflect this? The article does mention the previous consensus date of 19ka to 24 ka BP; what if I add a sentence to the end of the paragraph, saying that this result forced a reassessment of the dating of the end of the Pleistocene in North America? The MacDougall is less detailed on the radiocarbon dating that Taylor & Bar-Yosef, but it does get more specific about the reasons why the site is so important, so I would cite it as well as the Taylor & Bar-Yosef. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So before the era of C14 dating the Pleistocene was thought to have ended before 20,000 BP, but Two Creeks showed that glaciations continued for thousands more years. I think you need to explain the wrong Pleistocene end date at the start of the paragraph, as without that it is unclear (to me) why Two Creeks matters. (You currently only explain that the Two Creeks date was wrong.) BTW it is off topic but it is curious that the ice advance occurred at about the time of the Older Dryas, but there was no advance during the far more severe Younger Dryas. This appears to be discussed at [49] but unfortunately only an abstract is currently available. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"and hence this was taken to be the date of the end of the Wisconsin glaciation, marking the end of the Pleistocene in North America" This is not quite right - as you say above it was not the end but the terminus post quem, the date of the final ice advance of the Wisconsin glaciation.
Changed to "and hence this was taken to be the date of the last advance of the Wisconsin glaciation before its final retreat marked the end of the Pleistocene in North America"; I'd like to avoid using terminus post quem, as it's jargon that many readers won't understand. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dates such as 11,404 BP may confuse some readers, particularly as you have said above that the Pleistocene ended 11,700 years ago. I think you need to remind readers that the development of calibration led to a major revision of Libby's early dates. (It is strange that McDougall says that the calibration was only a few hundred years, which would put it around the same date as the start of the Holocene warming. Is this an error or has thinking changed that much since he wrote in 2008?)
Very good point; I've added some clarification. Let me know if that addresses the issue. Re Macdougall: that looks like a flat-out error to me. Taylor & Bar-Yosef make it clear calibration pushed the date back by about 2,000 years. Macdougall may have been looking at the uncalibrated dates from the 1990 results, which were indeed a few hundred years different from Libby's original results. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have the impression that there is a "gap" between C14 dating and other methods for older dates, so that for example it is difficult to date a sample of c.150,000 years BP. Is this correct?
That was probably true at one time, but it appears not to be the case now. Take a look at this book; figure 1.6 (near the end of chapter 1) gives a chart showing the effective ranges of various dating methods, and you can see there are other methods. I've no doubt an archaeologist would be able to give more details on where various methods fall short, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply above and there are a couple of points you have missed so I have moved them to here:
"This is done by calibration curves, which are described in more detail below." Do you still need this? If so I think you should indicate which section you mean. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"the level of 14C in the biosphere has remained constant over time" Would it not be better to refer to the atmosphere as you point out below that biosphere level is determined by that in the atmosphere? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That looks fine to me. I will do a final read through tomorrow, but meanwhile how about this sentence: "During its life, a plant or animal is exchanging carbon with its surroundings, so the carbon it contains will have the same proportion of 14C as the biosphere and the carbon exchange reservoir." This sounds a bit odd to me. As the biosphere is the zone of life, it seems to say that life will have the same 14C as the zone of life. Do you mean atmosphere? Also it might be better to leave out the carbon exchange reservoir as you have not yet explained it at that point in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I was trying to avoid saying atmosphere because animals, for example, don't get their carbon directly from the atmosphere they get it by eating plants or other animals. But ultimately it does come from the atmosphere, so on reflection I think it's better to say so. I mentioned the carbon exchange reservoir because that includes the atmosphere, but if I just say atmosphere it's more accurate, and as you say it has not yet been explained. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
"The sample is assumed to have originally had the same 14C/12C ratio as the ratio in the biosphere" Is this right? As different parts of the biosphere have different ratios, surely there is no such thing as the biosphere ratio.
Changed. I was trying to get readers to think of the equivalent live organism, rather than the atmospheric source of the carbon, but as you say that introduces confusion so I think "atmosphere" is better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Carbon exchange reservoir. I think it would be helpful to start this section by defining it, before going on to say how the different elements vary. Also you seem ambiguous whether there is one reservoir or several. In the diagram you use the plural for the heading and the singular for the note.
I've added a definition and a reference for it. Re the singular and the plural: the word "reservoir" is used to refer to both the overall reservoir, including the atmosphere, biosphere, and oceans, and also to refer to the individual components within that -- so the oceans are a reservoir. I was hoping this would be clear from context; is there a clarification that would help? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would just add a statement saying what you say above - that reservoir is sometimes used to mean the system as a whole and sometimes the individual components. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
New Zealand/Austria graph. As with many maps and graphs, I find it difficult to tell apart the colours as I am colour-blind. Would it be possible to use contrasting primary colours?
This is one of the parts of the article that predate my involvement, so I can't immediately reproduce this. However, the editor who made it was active recently on the German Wikipedia, so if you can let me know two colours which work well for people who are colour-blind, I'll ask them to do another version of it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure as there are different forms of colour blindness, but I think the blue is fine, and red and black should be OK for the other colours. It would help to make the lines in the key thicker.Dudley Miles (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"It was quickly apparent that the principles of radiocarbon dating were valid, despite discrepancies the cause of which was then unknown." the cause of which were then unknown?
I think it's "was": the subject is "cause", not "discrepancies". I thought about changing this to "causes", but really there was one primary cause, which was the need for calibration, so I'd rather not get the idea that there were lots of causes into the reader's head at this point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the logic of this. Calibration has two different components, variable C14 levels and the wrong half life, and you explain many other important causes of false dates. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
do all living organisms exchange their carbon well? for example a 6000-yr old tree has the same C14/C12 ratio as its reservoir?
Yes, all living organisms exchange their carbon in a way that captures the then-current ratio, but a tree only exchanges carbon for the tree ring it is currently growing. So a 6,000-year-old tree has 5,999 rings that are not exchanging carbon, and one ring that is exchanging carbon. That's the basis of using the dendrochronology to establish the calibration curve -- each tree ring captures the 14 C/12 C ratio of the year it grew in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps mention this after "once it dies" in Principles (could be a footnote). Non-experts would have a hard time getting this. Nergaal (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
this is a bit confusing: "the radiocarbon age of marine life is typically about 440 years." this means if a fish is tested he appears to have died at the same time with a land-mammal dying 440 years ago?
That's correct. The calibrated age doesn't show this, because marine life is calibrated with a different curve, to allow for exactly this problem. But if you catch a fish today, and test it as if it was a land animal, you'll get an apparent age of over 400 years. This actually came up in today's featured article, on the exhumation of Richard III -- he ate enough sea-food that the lab that tested his bones had to apply the marine correction to their results. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add this clarification somewhere in the text. I hat to think really hard to get that this is what the sentence was saying. Nergaal (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Dates are often reported in years "before present", or BP; this refers to a baseline of 1950 AD, so that a date of 500 BP means 1450 AD." is a bit confusing, since present is not 1950. Maybe remove this from the intro?
I actually added it at someone else's request; see above -- the suggestion was that people would want to know what a reported date means, and the BP terminology is very widely used, so I figured I should include it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it could use more images. I had to remove the Libby picture because it's non-free, sadly. The equation used to be in the article; I took it out partly because I didn't need the third part of the equation, but mostly because it was better to be able to place text in between the two equations as part of the explanatory flow. The bristlecone pine picture is good, but unfortunately the two places in the article where it could go already have graphic images and there's not really room to add it. I'm not keen on putting the Shroud of Turin in; I think it's a somewhat controversial topic and I would rather find an image of one of the other archaeological examples. I found an image of the Great Isaiah Scroll and added that to the discussion of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I also agree that a picture of some of the measurement equipment would be good, but although I have access to some pictures of Libby's early equipment, they are copyrighted, and I don't think I can justify use. I'm open to other ideas -- it would be great to add more pictures.
Put the tree after Intcal_13_calibration_curve.png. Maybe use File:Scintillation counter as a spectrometer.jpg or File:Scintillation Counter.jpg. Nergaal (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I put the tree at the top of that section and moved the graph down, and trimmed the caption slightly (it was repeating material from the main text). Rather than a scintillation counter I went with an accelerator mass spectrometer, since AMS is now the most important measurement technology. How does it look now? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. In the Two Creeks discussion, I only added it to the final number, because I think it would get very messy to include parenthetical BC dates for each of the other six BP dates in that paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I went through this article several times in the past year and I think it is of a very good quality. It is slightly over'y technical at times, but I have a hard time seeing how it can be improved even further considering the subject itself is very technical. If you have some time I would appreciate any comments at the FLC of List of nearest exoplanets. Nergaal (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly just a disclaimer, my knowledge of the scientific world ends with the C average I got across a dozen odd science based units in my undergraduate degree, and that was several years ago, so this review will be largely non-technical.
Consider wikilinking Before present; even though there is an explanation of the basics here there is a decent article on the subject.
Any particular reason the third and fourth use of half-life are wikilinked, but the first isn't? Also despite the explanation a wikilink probably wouldn't hurt in the lead.
Liquid scintillation counting is wikilinked, and in the below section "beta counting" is also linked to that page. The term "beta counting" does not appear at the 'Liquid scintillation counting' page; i'm confused.
I've removed the second link. Liquid scintillation counting can be used to count either alpha particles of beta particles. I don't think a link from beta counting is necessary, though, since as you say it's linked earlier. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Higham and co-workers (2014) have suggested..." Is it customary to format the date of the paper like this? Shouldn't it just read "In 2014, Hingham and co-workers suggested..."
I'd agree that for an article on an extremely technical subject, the readability here is good.
If you'd like me to comment on any thing in particular, just point it out. I'll support on proseonce the issues above that require responses are addressed.Freikorp (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Freikorp: Thank you very much for the review. Since you don't have a science background, there is one thing I'd like you to comment on, if you wouldn't mind; Johnbod mentioned at the start of this FAC that he thinks the article structure gets into the science too quickly. Could you have a look at his comments and see what you think? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article does get very sciency fairly early at 'Physical and chemical details', but it's not like I wasn't expecting it to. It's probably true that if 'explanation of how radiocarbon dates' or the like appeared first less readers would be lost, but I don't see this as a major issue. I mean, how many people are going to be reading this article out of general interest unless it was TFA anyway? And it's not like they can't just scroll past the parts that are loosing them. The article certainly does 'recapitulate the theory as it has developed', but I don't see a problem with that either; if you're not interested in the development of the theory, again you can just skip those parts. I'm not saying couldn't be organised better or trimmed in parts, but I didn't see any major issues reading the whole thing (other than it was a bit dry as the subject didn't interest me too much haha). Freikorp (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments. Challenging subject, generally well done.
There is no explanation offered to the reader to explain why they are being told about a thing called the "carbon exchange reservoir". I didn't really get what the point of the information was - it certainly isn't made explicit. Where the section comes close to explaining it, instead it veers into the weird: "the radiocarbon age of marine life is typically about 440 years". I think this section needs a sentence or more at the start to explain that although C14 decays at a constant rate, the proportion in a living creature depends on where in the biosphere it formed, lived and died. This is because the mixing of C14 that is created in the atmosphere into other parts of the biosphere, such as the oceans, can take varying amounts of time. If indeed that is the point being made...i was genuinely unsure.
The section "Pleistocene/Holocene boundary in Two Creeks Fossil Forest" is a bit tricky, and I can see from comments above that it has already been the subject of some discussion. Although "varve" has been wikilinked in a previous section, i'm not sure its use without a plain English explanation is a great idea. I have an admittedly very rusty degree in geology and couldn't remember coming across the term. What about something like "Before the advent of radiocarbon dating, the fossilized trees had been dated by correlating sequences of annually deposited layers of sediment at Two Creeks with sequences in Scandanavia. This led to estimate that the trees were between 24,000 and 19,000 years old..."
"...which when calibrated gives two date ranges: 13,730 to 13,550 cal BP, or 11,780 BC to 11,600 BC". The expression "two date ranges" here implies that the two are different to each other, not different expressions of the same date range. I think this will mislead the reader. What about simply saying "...which when calibrated gives a date range of 13,730 to 13,550 cal BP, or 11,780 BC to 11,600 BC."
Ouch. That was a bad editing error on my part; I was responding to an earlier comment about clarifying the fact that an uncalibrated date range could turn into two separate calibrated ranges, and misread the text when I made the edit. This is a single range and I've removed the incorrect wording. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have some sympathy for an early comment by Johnbod about the article becoming very technical, and I've often felt that a number of WP articles lack sufficient introductory or contextual material in the early body text (particularly in biology). However, in the case of this article, i can't think of an alternative approach that would better deliver the material without creating a choppy ordering of the content, so I'm satisfied that the current approach, particularly with the strong lead, is OK.
This article is about the Alice Cooper band's breakthrough album, which took them from mere chicken-slaughtering infamy to pop superstardom—within two years they'd be rivaling Led Zeppelin in ticket sales, and would leave a lasting influence on punk, hard rock, and metal. Curly Turkey¡gobble!23:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Media review
"I'm Eighteen" snippet caption needs editing for grammar
Slightly, but the minimal use is now the same as the not replaceable parameter? Also, lyrics can be demonstrated by text alone, so a clearer explanation of why the sample is needed in the purpose parameter would be beneficial. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments -- as a minor Alice fan (if that's possible!) I might recuse coord duties to review, hopefully over the coming week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedited a bit so I don't have any special issue with the prose as it now stands -- tks Curly for responding to and actioning a couple of queries I raised in my edit summaries.
The only thing I've gone and undone is the past tense in the album cover bit—we're supposed to describe these things in the present tense, as these details remain true today. Curly Turkey¡gobble!23:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't really notice the lack of anything much in terms of comprehensiveness -- background, recording, style, reception and legacy all seemed to be treated in reasonable depth without going into the trivial.
Media-wise I'll happily go with Nikki's review above.
Source-wise I'd welcome a review for formatting/reliability from Nikki but I'll probably spotcheck some sources myself, particularly in the Content section, for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. This isn't because I think Curly's a risky proposition but I find it's a bit of a challenge to paraphrase discussions of popular music while remaining close to the meaning intended, so worth a look in any such article.
That brings me to a couple of structural suggestions: I wonder if Content might not be better as Style or simply Music and lyrics, unless those are frowned upon by WP:Albums these days. I also feel the present Content style should be sandwiched between Recording and production and Release and reception, since going from the latter to Content seemed to be rewinding things.
You're right—I think I may have had the bit on the cover artwork in there at some time, but now there's only the music and lyrics, so I've retitled the section "Music and lyrics". Curly Turkey¡gobble!23:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's about it for now, I enjoyed the read and am leaning to support but will await your responses re. structure and also look at a few sources before committing... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm misreading, the only actionable comment I saw was the titling of one section, which I changed. As for no progress and no support—what can I say? Wikipedians don't know good music. I guess it'll be another FAC archived over lack of interest. Curly Turkey¡gobble!21:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I'm not planning to archive it as of now, since we have some ongoing commentary and Ian Rose leaning to supporting. I wish I could review but I have a COI, I'm afraid. :) --Laser brain(talk)18:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I must apologise for my tardiness in returning to the review. Just a couple of things:
Doesn't look like my suggestion about moving Content (now Music and lyrics) to between Recording and production and Release and reception was acknowledged.
I spotchecked Music and lyrics and had only one concern, namely that I couldn't see anywhere in Kofman suggesting that "Is It My Body" was a "sleazy boogie", or indeed referring to the song's musical style at all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm ... I'm looking through my sources and can't find where I came across that. The only "boogie" I can find is here, where it's called "necrophiliac boogie" (I have no idea where necrophilia would come into it). This source describes the vocals as "sleazy", but I don't think it would be appropriate to use these souces that way. I've removed "sleazy boogie" for now. Curly Turkey¡gobble!06:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tks mate, I've also just scanned the reference section for formatting and reliability and apart from a bit of redundancy in page refs nothing leapt out, so happy to offer full support -- hope we see more of these... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Just a couple of points:
"The band moved to Detroit in 1970 and was influenced by the aggressive hard rock scene there. The group enlisted a young Bob Ezrin as producer and spent two months rehearsing ten to twelve hours a day as Ezrin encouraged the band to tighten its songwriting." Two sentences in a row starting "The band... The group ...". How about combining this with a semicolon and putting "they" for the subject of one half?
Apparently we're constricted to using only "they" or only "it" when referring to groups; "it" doesn't really sound natural here, and the rest of the article uses "it". One of those "foolish consistency" rules I think, but I'm not going to bother fighting it—I've reworded to "A young Bob Ezrin was enlisted as producer". Curly Turkey¡gobble!10:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You use "changing names" and "changed names"; I think this might be a touch colloquial. I'd use "they changed their name to" or "renamed themselves", though I'm not sure if American usage makes a band plural or singular.
NAmEng uses both singular and plural, but here we're required to stick with one. For istance, "Onomapotpoeia is a Canadian rock band; they are four of the riff-rockin'-est musicians from Banff."—NAmEng requires the singular for the first statement and the plural for the second. Wikipedia requires us to settle on one or the other, and awkwardness ensues. Anyways, I've reworded to "a name change" and "the band adopted the name". Curly Turkey¡gobble!10:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"perpetuated the story": I don't think you can use "perpetuate" if the story wasn't already in circulation. I think you could just say "claiming that it came from".
If "the" belongs in the link for Guess Who, shouldn't it be capitalized? Same question for the Melvins.
I seem to remember there was a bloody battle over this issue, and I can't remember which side won. A quick look at the article for the Beatles has "the" in lowercase in the body, but if there's a decision it should be otherwise then please go ahead and change it. Curly Turkey¡gobble!10:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"being "in the middle"—"of life" or "of doubt".": suggest "being "in the middle of life" or "of doubt"." as a little easier to parse.
I'm curious about the WP requirement that a band be consistently singular or plural throughout the article; where's that stated? Is it in the MoS? Re "the Guess Who", my concern was more that the link should follow the capitalization -- if it's "the Guess Who", I'd just link "Guess Who". Having the leading lowercase "the" in blue as well just looks odd. But it's not something that one could oppose over, so I've supported below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Just a concern, really. I've noticed multiple instances of references appearing in the middle of sentences, not following punctuation. I don't exactly recall what policy/guidelines/whatever says about this, but I personally find such to be obnoxious and POINTy. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If by "not following punctuation" you mean "not following a period at the end of a sentence", there never has been a rule that that has to be the case—only that citations not immediately preced a punctuation mark. As for POINTy—what POINT do you think is being made? It's hard to respond when I don't know what I'm accused of. Curly Turkey¡gobble!01:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a Grade I listed French Gothic Revival style turreted house in Kensington, London, which was built by William Burges, a master Victorian architect. Built between 1875 and 1881, it was the residence of Burges before his death, and he hosted numerous parties at the house. After a period of neglect in the 1960s, it was restored and was purchased in 1972 by Jimmy Page, who has owned it ever since. The house was a real labour of love for Burges and some of the intricate detail he put into it was a fine example of his prowess and talent, not only as an architect, but as a furniture maker and jewel craftsman. Page himself has commented that he's still finding new things in the design work even today, such is the attention to detail. This has been extensively researched by myself, KJP and Gareth and we believe we've written a highly comprehensive article on the subject which does it justice. After a very thorough peer review we feel this is now ready. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld22:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Burges described the house as a "model residence of the thirteenth century" and the architectural historian J. Mordaunt Crook considered it to be "the most complete example of a medieval secular interior produced by the Gothic Revival and the last". More recently, James Stourton describes it as "the most singular of London houses, even including the Soane Museum".: This reads more like ad copy than an overview of the subject. I would expect a description of the house before this sort of thing, anyways.
I'm uncertain. I can certainly take some/all of them out but I think they are supported by the main text. As importantly, they try to explain why the house is so notable and more "singular" than Soane's is quite a claim. Shall we see what others think.
I said yesterday that I think it's best to avoid three quotes in the lede and somebody might pick up on it. I'll try to alter it now.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to explain—it's not a matter of whether the text supports it, but whether it's helpful at this scope in orienting the reader to the subject. It seemed to me that a lot of text was getting in the way of getting to the point, which is describing what the house was. Curly Turkey¡gobble!23:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the three distracting quotes have now been removed. I should have removed them myself earlier when the Dr. suggested it. Hope the lede works now. KJP1 (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More recently, James Stourton describes: how recent is "recently"?
Done.
Although he continued to finalise earlier projects, William Burges received no further major commissions after 1875.: this is so abrupt as to be disorienting. Who is Burges? what happened in 1875? "major commissions" refers to what? I realize some of these details are in the lead, but the lead is supposed to summarize the body—and these details are not in the body.
Done - I hope.
The house provided a suitable backdrop for his gregarious nature.; his beloved dogs: I wouldn't oppose over this, but I'm not sure this is encyclopaedic wording
Done and Done.
Does some of which refer to Dandie, Bogie and Pinkie specifically, or to his beloved dogs in general?
Done.
in the tomb he had designed for his mother: was he buried with his mother?
Done - by removal. Crook doesn't say. His mother is obscure, I can't even find her name.
describing his purchase as the "biggest gift I've ever given myself": this kind of wording grates against my ears: he called it "biggest gift I've ever given myself". I'd reword either to make it explicit that the quote is a quote, or paraphrase it.
Done - by paraphrasing.
The same with that "It was a strange building and had eerie murals painted on the ceiling ... I sensed evil". and commented that he "wanted Burges to be proud of us"—"that" introduces it as a subordinate clause, not as a quotation, so the switch in pronouns is unexpected and disorienting.
Done - by removal.
a little beetle on the wall or something like that, it's Burges's attention to detail that is so fascinating: that's a comma splice, which I think is safe to fix even in a quotation.
Not Done. Sorry, don't understand "comma splice". Can you clarify.
Now DONE. By removal. It's not essential and if it confuses, it's better out.
with walls lined with bookcases: the library, or the depiction of the Tower of Babel?
Done.
"parts of speech, noun, verb, preposition"; "systems of theology and law": quotes require attribution—but why is these quoted? It seems reading further that these aren't quoting someone, but are representing the themes themselves—but they read as quotations. Perhaps put them in italics instead?
Done.
"most celebrated of all Burges's jokes": the joke went over my head
Take the point - I shall get advice on a footnote.
Well, the footnote leaves my head scratching. The link's great—but the quote defending it's use? and seemingly atributing it to Cockney? I'd also like to see it more explicit—something like "In Burges's time a "dropped aitch" — as in 'Enry 'Iggins for Henry Higgins — was socially taboo." Although I'm not sure if even "socially taboo" is necessary—I might go with something like "This refers to the "dropped aitch" — as in 'Enry 'Iggins for Henry Higgins — in many British English dialects." Curly Turkey¡gobble!23:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"tall stories [being] part of the dining room rite": attribution required
Done.
while the ceiling is of "sheet-metal": not literally sheet metal? Why is this quoted?
Done'ish. - it is apparently sheet metal. But you're right, it doesn't need quotes.
supposedly to appease Betjeman's wife Penelope: who did the "supposing"? Is it disputed?
Done.
James Stourton describing its early twentieth-century history as "a paradigm of the reputation of the Gothic Revival": I don't understand—is this quote telling us how the house was ignored?
Yes - he's saying the neglect and decline of the house mirrored the decline in the reputation of Victorian Gothic architecture. OK to leave?
Done, I hope. GA also found it confusing and I think I'd made it so by trying to link Burges's reputation with the fate of the house. I hope it is clearer now.
I notice someone changed {{convert|0.3|mi}} to {{convert|0.48|km}}. It pretty much defeats the purpose of the template to hand-covert miles to km and then use the template to convert back to miles. Curly Turkey¡gobble!22:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey:, what section are we talking about here? Or do you want all distances with flip in it?
Sorry, I misunderstood—I didn't realize the source was Google Maps. I thought it was an Imperial number from a text source that you guys had converted to metric and then put in a {{convert}} to convert back to Imperial. Sorry for the confusion. Curly Turkey¡gobble!21:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no fan of citations in a lead, but I think the direct quotations from Burges, Crook and Stourton need them here, even the Crook one which is repeated and cited in the main text. See WP:CITELEAD.
There's a debate on the lede quotations. Would you prefer them out?
"suffered significant vandalism" – what did the vandalism signify?
The most significant loss was the figure of Fame from the Dining Room chimneypiece. The statue of a boy with a hawk also went. Should I put a detail in?
Done. Added a mention of the loss of Fame.
Oh, I see what you mean. Done by removal.
Location and setting
"no fewer than six Royal Academicians" – a touch of WP:EDITORIAL?
Done.
Design, construction and craftsmanship
not sure we need link "marble".
Done.
Betjeman to Turnbull – 1962 to 1969
"Country Life" – meaning, I take it, the magazine found in dentists' waiting rooms. If so it should be italicised and linked.
Done.
"Lady Turnbull undertook a program of restoration" – two points here. "Lady Turnbull" is wrong. It is exactly like calling Prince Charles's first wife "Lady Spencer". The daughter of an earl is Lady Forename Surname. I suggest "She" at second mention and "Turnbull" at third. The second point is that you have misspelled programme. In the Queen's English the American spelling is reserved for computer-speak (though I have a horrible foreboding that the infection will spread to other uses of the word.)
Done and Done.
Drawing room
"Charles Handley-Read, the first scholar of the twentieth century ..." – both the link and the description would be better in the previous section, at the first mention of his name.
Done.
First floor
Is the sub-header strictly accurate? The text covers not only the first floor but also the garret.
Done.
Plan
A most impressive addition since I last read the article. One tiny point: the key says "Guest's bedroom", which would probably be better as either "Guests' bedroom" (there were two washstands, after all) or just "Guest room" as in the text above.
Done - as "guest room". The plan is good, isn't it. Hchc2009 did the honours.
Architectural coverage
"Country Life" – needs italics, and the title of the article arguably should be in quotes rather than italicised.
Done and Done.
"subject of a master's thesis by Helen Adkins" – there isn't really any evidence from a WP:RS that this thesis exists. Giving its title as a footnote doesn't get us anywhere with WP:VERIFIABLE.
Appreciate the point. But following an approach from Gerda, I've had a long message on my talkpage from the author which does contain a lot of useful information. I'm just not sure how to get it in.
If there is a lot of good stuff inadmissible under WP:VER and WP:OR it can usefully go on the article talk page, where readers can have the benefit while heeding the health warning. I looked in at your talk page and took my hat off to Ms Adkins – what a star! Tim riley talk20:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"London 3: North West" – could do with a citation and page numbers.
Done.
References need a bit of polishing:
the Callan book lacks hyphens for the ISBN (978-1-86105-766-2)
Done.
Export of Objects of Cultural Interest 2010/11 – the author is not HMSO, but The Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest (see here)
Done.
the Handley-Read refs are in a cite book template, which isn't ideal for magazine articles: it mucks up the italicisation of article title vis-à-vis publication title.
Osband – I don't see the point of giving an access date for a book with its own full publication date
Done.
Stamp & Amery lack an ISBN altogether. (978-0-85139-500-5 is what you want)
Done.
That's all from me. The article has come on apace since the peer review and I look forward to adding my support for its promotion once the minor points, above, are attended to. – Tim riley talk10:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tim - really glad you liked it and hugely appreciate your Support - particularly as I know that, deep down, you're with the critic who wrote; "the over ornate homes (with) fantastic ornamentation that made the hideous Victorian Gothic buildings of the period even more hideous...." Thanks and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 10:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Designed in the French Gothic Revival style, it was designated a Grade I listed building in 1949." This combines two things which seem unrelated to me. Follow three "considered", before the reader gets more facts, - consider that also, please.
The other point was fixed since I saw it first. New:
"particularly the McConnochie House in Cardiff and Castell Coch and Cardiff Castle." - Is the double "and" intended?
Done. No it wasn't. Removed.
"The house was inherited by his brother-in-law, Richard Popplewell Pullan, who had married Burges's sister, Mary." - seems a bit redundant to say that someone who married the sister is a brother-in-law.
Done.
Location ...
Strange to have one distance in metric but not the other.
"In contrast to the typical style of houses on the Holland Estate, the cultural historian Caroline Dakers writes ..." - I don't think her writing is in contrast, rather that she writes about the contrast.
Done.
"At the Tower House the staircase is consigned", - if we really need to repeat the name, a comma might help.
Done.
Surprised to see the designation here, - history?
Done.
Madonna and child? Madonna and Child?
Done.
First floor ...
"the Red Bed (his own)" - a bit strange
Done.
Architectural ...
"The house, and its creator, were then largely ignored, James Stourton describing the house's early twentieth-century history as "a paradigm of the reputation of the Gothic Revival"" - had to read three times and still not sure what it means.
Done, I hope. You weren't the first to struggle over this sentence!
Clarify: I don't mean move, I mean bring the floor plan of only the ground floor early. Some people prefer prose, others plans and structured information. I would like to see a floor plan early in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's the very best I can do. Trying to split the plan into sections is waaaaaaaaaaaay beyond my capabilities. That said, I do think it looks better there. Others may not. KJP1 (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like that better than before, but it wasn't quite what I meant, English is difficult. If you click on the link to floorplan above, you find a different, more detailed one, and I would imagine THAT where it fits best, with the description of the ground floor, while the complete set could stay more in the back, for the enthusiasts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating: is there a good reason not to use the detailed floor plan (linked above) for the ground floor in the context of the ground floor, leaving the complete set for later as is was before? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The most complete example of a medieval secular interior produced by the Gothic Revival, and the last." This is in a quote box, which is in layout conflict with images, + I don't think it's a good quote, - how can revival produce medieval? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment on the layout but I think it is quite a good quote. What he is saying is - the Gothic Revival produced a lot of "imitations/copies/fakes/recreations" of medieval interiors and, of all of them, the Tower House was the best and the last. It goes to the notability of the Tower House, as does the Stourton quote about it being the most "singular" house in London, even including the Soane Museum. I'd rather it remained but very willing, of course, to see what others think. KJP1 (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If people agree it's a good quote I think it should go to a different section, not "First floor and garret". I could see it in "Architectural coverage", while I think the image there might appear sooner, showing Burges as the inspiration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine, I see that it was moved from the quote box in a floor section to the lede, which is better, because it's a general remark, not floor-related, and it's understandable in context. - One point above, though,
I don't see what you mean by "see also in the main plan". I still think to have the plan of four levels (main plan?) would be better later, but the detailed one, hinting at the complex ceiling structure (and not yet in the article or I didn't find it), better where the floor is described, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike intention-reading ;) - I am asking (for a while now) why a floor plan which shows the complexity of the building better than the simple Main plan is not taken? Perhaps one of the other nominators can answer that rather simple question? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Plan section features a plan of all the floors and a key, which in my opinion is a superior image as it covers all of the floors. The ground floor plan would look too cluttered if we also added it and not as good as the other if we replaced it. I've added See also Ground floor plan image in that section so readers can have the best of both worlds with a labeled plan of the ground floor too. Is this not good enough for you?♦ Dr. Blofeld19:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
English is a difficult language. I said "I don't see what you mean by "see also in the main plan"." - You start mind reading ;) - instead of saying that you added it in the caption of the other plan. NOW I found it, hope future readers will see it more easily, - I missed it without explanation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When you said "I don't see what you mean by "see also in the main plan" I didn't know quite what to make of it as I thought you'd be watching the article and would have seen it! OK, thanks for your support anyway!♦ Dr. Blofeld19:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason you've chosen to make the shortened footnote read "Handley-Read – Burlington." rather than "Handley-Read 1963."? After all, the two Handley-Read sources are publication-year distinguishable, and you cite the other one conventionally. While we're at it, since these look like periodicals, any chance of pagination information for either or both?
Done - page numbers added for both the Burlington and Country Life articles.
Ideally, the actual bibliographic entry for articles in periodicals includes the full page-range of that article, but I'm not going to consider that actionable; what you've got here is good enough if someone really wants to track these down. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading it correctly, that Arts Council document has an author and a (publication?) date: Frances Collard and 19 May 2010, respectively. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure that Arts Council should instead be Arts Council England, and ... I have no idea what this document is. This feels like the sort of thing that might have been part of something longer in its print format, or at least be assigned some sort of bureaucratic document number. But I guess we work with what we have?
Hopefully...
I have absolutely no idea what note 64 (the "Accession number" entry) is, but I have to assume this isn't a complete bibliographical entry for it.
It seems that the reference currently at #69 is a thesis paper? Frankly, I'm not sure that an unpublished Master's thesis is worth mentioning at all. Elsewhere in the project, doctoral theses are sometimes viewed as acceptable source material, depending on the context, with lesser papers not so much so. If you are determined to keep this, the citation must be formatted better than this. Perhaps explore the murky world of {{cite thesis}}? It looks to be in German, so make sure that's noted.
Done. I've removed this as advised that, being unpublished, it can't be verifiable. But on the article's Talkpage, I shall post the very valuable information kindly provided by the author of the thesis as it would be a great pity not to make it available. KJP1 (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm stumped here as I don't have it and can't find it. I could remove it as it isn't essential, but it is quite helpful, I think, for the sources on the house to be as comprehensive as possible. Can you live without page numbers? KJP1 (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"the names of the individuals and firms who undertook work at the house": This is the third undertaken/undertook in the article. Perhaps just "who worked at the house" (or possibly "on the house"), although you'll then need to reword the next sentence to avoid redundancy?
Problem persists. First one is in the lead ("construction undertaken by the Ashby Brothers"), then the previous paragraph ("were undertaken in July 1875"), then this one ("firms who undertook work"). There are two more later in. There are generally a lot of synonymous ways to make these statements, and it's the sort of word that stands out (at least to this American reader) when used repeatedly. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about the first section of history right? I see absolutely no problem with what's given and it doesn't read repetitively to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld21:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that this might be an ENGVAR issue. You use undertake in some form five times in the article as a whole. Now, that's a perfectly good word, but not one I'd expect to see at that density. Is it simply more commonly used for "getting things started" in the UK? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Catching a chill while overseeing work at Cardiff, Burges returned, half paralysed, to the Tower House where he lay dying for some three weeks.": As the Internet says, "That escalated quickly." Also, as its acting as a single adjective here, "half-paralysed". And, finally, there's an errant extra space between the closing period and the reference.
Is the Ilchester Estate mentioned by Handley-Read the same "agents" discussed by Betjeman and Green? If not, then the Handley-Read setenced needs to be reworded, because currently it implies that these various people are just ascribing different motivations to the same group. For that matter, if the house was constructed on the lands of the Earl of Ilchester, is that something germane to the Location and setting section, way earlier in the article?
Upon second look, I see that the Earl is indeed mentioned in the History section, so to some extent the last part of this objection is satisfied (although I'm still tempted to say it would provide a historical context for the Location bit). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cork Cathedral is a duplicate link, as it is a piped link to Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral, first used in the History section. Also, the piping is confusing here. Since this cathedral was first introduced by another name, a casual reader cannot know that Burges's first major comission is the one being referred to here.
I still think there needs to be a way to let a reader known that this is the same building talked about earlier, either by calling it "also known as Cork Cathedral" on the first appearance (or something like that) or by calling it by its formal name here. I really didn't realize it was the same thing until I investigated why my duplicate link detector was pinging. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've also cited it. I think C.H-R was referring to both doors. The exact quote reads "The bronze doors in the hall, for instance, are similar to doors at Cork Cathedral." KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Back up at the top of History, where Saint Fin Barre's is glossed as Cork Cathedral, might I suggest this slight rewording to move the Corks a little further apart: "The architect William Burges gained his first major commission in 1863 at the age of 35, Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral in Cork, also known as Cork Cathedral."? Or something along those lines, I don't pretend this to be perfect either. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are the "founders of systems of theology and law" metaphorical, or are these depictions of historical personnages? If the later, I think the phrase shouldn't be italicized, as it would be literal (and, if available, it'd be nice to know who).
Done - I hope. I've given the exact Crook naming of the figures.
I don't think the list needs to be in quotation marks, as it conveys no opinion; regardless of who said it, those are the figures. But it's not hurting anything this way, either, I suppose. I might have "lawyers and theologians" but I suspect ENGVAR is at work there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think the Crook quote being used as a pullquote here is significant or exciting enough to earn that position. I'd relegate it to prose in the Architectural coverage section, were it up to me.
"The most complete example...", the same one as in the lead. It's not that I think it's a bad quote, or anything! I'd use it, too, were I writing this. I'm just unsure about it's placement as 1) a pullquote and 2) where it is in the article. Isn't this pretty much the definition of architectural coverage? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The rate and quality of improvement being made to this article has been impressive and worthy of my sincere admiration. The reference issues and inconsistent furniture descriptions are the most serious remaining problems, I think, and the ones that are most directly actionable shortcomings with regard to non-"brilliant prose" criteria. At this point, I'm withdrawing my objection to promotion, but I'd like to see especially those addressed (or at least examined, if otherwise impossible) before I can consider formal support. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very much appreciated. I have gone through the article capitalizing the names of pieces of furniture where they are specific items, e.g. the Zodiac Settle. Where they are non-specific, e.g. bronze table, I haven't. This follows the style of both Crook and Handley-Read, the most authoritative writers on Burges's furniture. I hope this works for you and shall go back and do a further check to make sure I've caught them all. Then I will look at the citations. I've hope I've also addressed your two outstanding concerns re. the decoration in the Library - see above. KJP1 (talk) 07:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been an admittedly hard judge here, and I'd like to thank Dr. Blofeld, KJP1, and Rationalobserver for humoring (wait, ENGVAR!) humouring my concerns. I would like to see something done with the "Accession number" reference, because it's really not a proper citation as it stands (I still don't know what it is). Otherwise, although I believe there's still a little bit of polish to be done, I am happy to support promotion. It is well-earned. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the Dr. says, really appreciate your efforts and your support. I intend to remove what is now Reference 67, the "Accession number" reference. We can't identify it and, as importantly, it's not necessary as Reference 62 confirms that the table in question is located at the Birmingham City Art Gallery. I think this addresses your remaining concern. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "Piece, date and location" column should be split into three or four columns, and each furniture item should have its own row (use rowspan). The table currently looks cluttered with too much going on in one column (defeating the purpose of using a table in the first place).
I don't think Architectural coverage should have the subsection Footnotes? (though you could just drop the subsection altogether by incorporating the footnote into the main text in a parenthesis)
The problem here isn't that you have a Footnotes section, it's that it is currently a === subsection under "Architectural coverage", when it should be a ==-level section like Notes and References (especially given that it's not a footnote to the section it's currently nested under). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image placement and sizing could be better. Far too often the text is sandwiched between images (or quote boxes/templates). Below Exterior and design there's a huge white space on my screen.
Can't help with the layout, unfortunately. Beyond my paygrade. But the article's had some rearranging. Does it look ok now? KJP1 (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do the coordinates need to appear twice? (infobox + top of the article)
The prose could be simplified. The house provided a suitable backdrop for entertaining his "range of friends run[ning] the whole gamut of Pre-Raphaelite London" – to dinner with the wine served from decanters of "barbarous opulence", or to tea in the garden, with the tea poured from pots shaped like a pomegranate or a fish is a mouthful. So is the article's very first sentence.
Some sentences are very confusing. The book contains a large number of photographs of the interior of the house by Francis Beford made me think "what Frank Bedford house?". The next sentence is ungrammatical too; it should be changed to "The house was then largely ignored; James Stourton described the house's its..."
The sentence could easily be changed to The book contains a large number of photographs by Francis Beford of the house's interior so that even somebody with my admittedly suspect literacy wouldn't be confused.
"The house was then largely ignored, James Stourton describing the house's..." is correct grammar, really? Even if so it reads awkwardly (especially with the repetitive "house") and would be better the way I changed it above.
Excessive use of "Burges" and "house" (often several times within a single sentence) can be reduced by replacing with pronouns.
Having read indopug's comments I should say this is the one in which he/she raises a point worth following up. I admit I didn't spot repeated nouns that could be pronouns, but one does (or at least I do) sometimes miss the chance to improve the flow of one's prose on those lines, and I'll run an eye over this article again with that in mind. Tim riley talk20:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After a fourth reading(!) Perhaps "another of Burges's passions: a fondness for opium", "Burges's inspirations were French Gothic" and "The frontages come from the other townhouse Burges designed" could benefit from replacing the surname with a pronoun. "House" crops up passim but I can find only one borderline case where "it" might be preferable, and I'd leave the noun unmolested. Tim riley talk21:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"fourth reading(!)"—I dare say that right there is the problem Tim. You've grown far too close and attached to the text. You're easily able to find errors in my quickly made comments, but don't see the repetitive words in "Burges's brother-in-law, Richard Popplewell Pullan, extensively described the house in the second of two works he wrote about Burges, The House of William Burges, A.R.A" or "The house was then largely ignored, James Stourton describing the house's early twentieth-century decline", or the obvious ambiguity of "The book contains a large number of photographs of the interior of the house by Francis Beford".—indopug (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't fault the research, but even from a glance it's clear that the prose and visual presentation of the article needs improvement.—indopug (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With the greatest possible respect, I should be cautious about heeding strictures on matters of prose from anyone who thinks two nouns take a singular verb as in "the prose and visual presentation of the article needs…" Verbum sat. Tim riley talk19:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And with the greatest possible respect, I would suggest that what this article needs is an through copyedit from somebody looking at it with fresh eyes, not a backs-to-the-wall defence against the hordes of the great unwashed.—indopug (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article was thoroughly read, reviewed and copyedited by some of the most productive featured articles contributors on wikipedia Indopug, including Tim, Brianboulton, Wehwalt, Cassianto, SchroCat and a few others who have over 100 FAs between them. If there were serious problems with the prose they'd have said so during the peer review. Sure, I welcome anybody to further read and edit it and comment, but your "needs fresh eyes" as if nobody competent has read it and only the article writers have edited it is not true. It's already had at least 10 pairs of "fresh eyes" looking at it, how many do you want? The only issue with the prose I can see is in places perhaps where quoting by the likes of Crook is given and might be paraphrased or reworded to improve the flow a little.♦ Dr. Blofeld11:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can, quite fairly, be accused of being too close to the text and I'm grateful to you, and to Squeamish Ossifrage, for your detailed comments. I think, however, that they can be satisfactorily addressed and I shall attempt to do so by the weekend. Best regards, KJP1 (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hope your concerns regarding the prose have been satisfactorily addressed and I greatly appreciate the help that has been given. I'm absolutely no expert on image sizing or placement within Wikipedia but others appear to think they are ok now. KJP1 (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Blofield, the extensive copyediting the article has received after I made my comments vindicates my stand. It is indeed much better now, and I have no objections to its becoming FA.—indopug (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. I was indeed too close to the text to note the many repetitions of "Burges" and "Tower House". KJP1 (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Blofeld - I've gone back through all the comments and, beyond some differing views regarding general layout, the positioning of a quotebox, and the size of images, I can't see anything that hasn't been addressed. So, what have I missed? KJP1 (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you head back over to The Ritz and I'll hang around here. I've forgotten - do we request "image" and "citation" checks or do the FAC people arrange this? KJP1 (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm out of things to pick on. As I've checked several of the sources against the text along the way, the delegates may consider my contributions to have also included a source check. I am explicitly not an expert at the intricacies of image licensing, but I saw no problems in a quick image check either. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've looked carefully through the article and found it well presented with all pertinent details of the building and its owners. It makes interesting reading and highlights one of London's most striking private residences.--Ipigott (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to support. I was one of several reviewers who made copious comments at the PR stage. The article has changed considerably since then, because of the large amount of work done at this FAC stage, mostly to its benefit. One of the downsides of so many reviewers is the number of issues, frequently trivial, often contradictory, that confront the nominators, who have to satisfy a range of opinions. I congratulate the nominators for the equable and responsive way they have handled the avalanche of suggestions handed to them here, with hardly a hint of impatience. I have made a few minor edits to the article, and have a few outstanding points for consideration:
The quotation in the lead: "the most complete example of a medieval secular interior produced by the Gothic Revival and the last" is clearly missing a comma after "revival", otherwise it makes no sense. Perhaps it was missing in the original; even so, it should be inserted here. We are not obliged to repeat the mistakes of our sources, and this is not worth the bother of a "sic".
Conversions: the conversion of metres to feet is fine when dealing with measurements – of a room, say – but looks very odd when applied to distances, especially for as long as 1,600 feet. We just don't "do" this sort of distance in feet. I'm not sure what the answer is here; if you remove the feet conversion, some busybody is bound to insist it be restored. My suggestion is to rewrite the sentence, getting rid of the 100 metres conversion entirely, and using a different conversion template for the 500m. Thus: "The Tower House is on a corner of Melbury Road, just north of Kensington High Street and some 500 metres (0.31 mi) due northeast of Kensington (Olympia) station..." etc.
Done. I've just taken the measurements out. I don't think they will actually be of use to anyone and they, and the conversions, did clutter things up. KJP1 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image use: There are lots of images in the article, to the point where there is significant clutter. Looking at the image in the "Exterior and design" section, this is so similar to the lead image as to be almost indistinguishable. Its placement opposite a long quote box leads to considerable text squeezing. I'd recommend losing the image, or the box, though in this case the box is more useful than the image.
In this same section, the house is described both as "massive" and "not large", which is confusing to readers. But what is meant by "not large"? What is the standard being applied – Buckingham Palace? We are told that the floor plan provides approximately 2,500 feet of floor space – but there are two principal floors, a basement and an attic. I make that at least 8,500 in all, which is ENORMOUS for a private house in this country, the equivalent of about 8 pre-war suburban semis. So I strongly advise you lose the subjective "not large", and say something like: "With a floor plan of about 50 ft by 50 feet (15 m) square,[34] 2,500 square feet (230 m2) on three floors, Burges went about its construction on a grand scale."
Done. I see what you mean. I actually think "massive" is used here in the sense of "having bulk (mass)", rather than big, but it was confusing. KJP1 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again for clutter-avoidance reasons, I recommend you lose the quote box in the "First floor" section. It isn't worth overcrowding the main text for this.
Really appreciate your further suggestions and continued interest in the article. I very much agree that the FAC has improved it, as the PR did before. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's all fine. I will nonetheless wait a little longer before my declaration, as I see that points and suggestions are still coming in (below) It's unlikely they will change my overall view, but I want to be sure. Brianboulton (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead, Golden Bed in linked and Red Bed is not. Since Golden Bed appears noteworthy, I assume that Red Bed would be equally noteworthy, so it is worth redlinking.Simon Burchell (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I think. Thank heavens someone else appears to have fixed it - I'm a menace when let loose on those conversion tables. KJP1 (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done - perhaps? What it is trying to say is that Burges, as Architect, is the A from the Alphabet frieze which decorates the room. Is this any better? KJP1 (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about this too much, I'm working through it now. It seems all the links are to Google Books, which I would hope is a stable website - still, you never know. For future reference, plug a web address into Wayback Machine here, and if the page has been archived it will give you the option of a saved version. As it happens, nothing I've done so far was pre-archived, so I'm archiving it as I go. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I shall save these and try to remember them for future reference. But, as the Dr. knows only too well, I have a bad habit of forget wikipedia editing tips and tools. KJP1 (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since these are all book sources, I think I will just remove the archiveurls I put in - everything is in print anyway; the tool is better for dynamic sources on the web. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really appreciate your comments and Support. It is a fascinating building and merits FA status. Thank you very much for moving it on. KJP1 (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I first became aware of this wonderful property after I was asked to help with interior photos. I was fascinated by it and by the man who "dreamed" and built it. A lot of work has gone into it and I think this is a first-quality effort by one and all. We hope (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers We hope, and thanks for the images! A pity we don't have an abundance of colour interior photos of every room though, some days perhaps Jimmy Page will kindly upload some!♦ Dr. Blofeld22:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you help with the Stourton book? Or with the Matthew Williams? I don't know any other recent photographic excusions into Mr Page's elusive but enchanting house. I should love to see inside, but doubt I will. Am most grateful for your support for the article. KJP1 (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I helped find non-watermarked photos from the Pulian book and ran across a larger copy of the exterior illustration from The Building News. I'd also love to see the inside but like you, I don't think I'll be able to either. We need to cultivate some new friends like Jimmy Page! :-) Recently I saw that the US Library of Congress does have a copy of the Pulian book but sadly, it hasn't been scanned to be online. They offer some photos of pages and scans of them but by the time you get done paying their fees, you'd be better off either trying to buy a copy or taking a trip to a library that has scanned it. Copies of non-scanned items are US$30 per page wanted. We hope (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is impossible. After a very long search, I got a very good quality A3 copy of The Architectural Designs of William Burges from the British Library store in Wetherby. And now I am waiting for the V&A to finalise their digitalisation of The House of William Burges which is imminent and, on completion, they will send me a copy. But neither would beat being mates with Jimmy Page and getting an invite! KJP1 (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the encyclopedic value of having detailed coverage of interior images in colour would be immense. In the commons we should have a category for each room and closeups of the detail on lots of the furnishings. Jimmy Page seems to be a Burges fan and is also enthusiastic about his work. I think he'd be interested in photographing it and sharing it, but then again he might want to keep it private. If he wants to show off the genius of Burges though I can't think of a better way to do so. Does he have a twitter account? Perhaps somebody here on Twitter could try to get hold of him.♦ Dr. Blofeld22:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note -- hmm, we'd had so much discussion of images above I thought one of our experts might have verified licensing already but perhaps not, so will list a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image check and some random comments from Crisco
What's with Architect? Why the bold?
Yes, it is a little confusing. What I'm trying to indicate is that Burges, as Architect, was the capital A for the architectural alphabet frieze which decorated the Library. The same frieze also includes the "dropped H" joke. Would it be better without the bold? KJP1 (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Burges as Burges.jpg - Evidence this was made by Godwin? Also, PD-100 would apply better here if it was.
This is awkward. Checking Crook, to try and find a better source, I find I wrongly attributed it to Godwin back when doing WB's page. Now corrected at Commons, and given a source. Hope it works now. KJP1 (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crook, p=75, has the image, and the attribution, along with a description of Burges as "short-sighted, pug-nosed, more than a little camp." I should have used that. But that doesn't get us any closer to an attribution on-line. Thoughts?
Ok, I think "Burges in profile" is now right. I'm hoping the PD templates are correct, the attribution to Poynter through Crook is ok, and the source properly links to the V&A page which records the detail around Poynter and Burges. But now I need to look at "Burges as Architect" as the trawling I've done now makes me suspect it's actually by Weekes not Poynter! KJP1 (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now sourced here [55]. Do we have a problem with this, and the drawing above as Poynter died in 1919? Would PD-70 work in both cases? KJP1 (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PD-70 is given on both images. But in the hidden categories both have [56]. I do not know how to remove these but they shouldn't be there, I think. KJP1 (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The template in the PD-art template is using PD-old-100, hence the problem (there's two templates on the file; you should be using PD-70 and PD-1923, not PD-100). This would presumably apply to both. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now I'm certain the artist was Weekes, not Poynter. The incorrect attributions are very regrettable and I apologise for them. Burges employed so many artists to decorate his furniture, fourteen on the Great Bookcase alone, it can sometimes be hard to work out exactly who did what. Nevertheless, they were wrong originally, but are correct now. For which, many thanks to Crisco 1492 for his very thorough image review. I've also tried to address the licencing and source issues in relation to both, and hope they are also right now.
Right. This source (at least, according to what's visible to me) says that he was still active in 1918... cutting it a bit close. 1920 (assuming that's correct; my new source suggests it's possible) would be enough for PD-70 and PD-1996.. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This [57] gives 1920. I've done a stub. He had two other artist brothers, Herbert and Henry Jr., so there could be confusion between them. KJP1 (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for a review as thorough as that you gave to WB himself and which picked up two embarrassing errors of my own making. KJP1 (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check needed still. Would it be better though for somebody with access to some of the books to check? I believe Tim riley did with the original Burges article, he's on a break right now though I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld14:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I missed the boat on this, but nobody took down the request for a review from FAC talk page. Image licensing looks good, although I wonder about the map. I am not familiar with using the soruce provided and cannot tell where the map inset came from. It looks like it was put up by a trusted and experienced reviewer and was commented on already above, so it all looks good to me. --Gaff (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source " HMSO 2011." Currently reference number 17. Why not give page numbers? Looks like the relevant pages are 25-27?
I'm a bit confused but it looks like the HMSO paper is about the settle and reads "The settle was placed opposite the windows in the drawing room in Tower House and remained there, descending in the family of R.P. Pullan, Burges’s brother-in-law, and was later owned by Col. T.H. Minshall, Col. E.R. B. Graham, and John Betjeman who removed it and gave it to Evelyn Waugh." That suggests that Pullan, Minshall, et al leased only the settle?
The Betjeman/Green letter p. 289 (ref#23 currently). I can only get a snippet view. Looks like it was a letter to Evelyn (presumably Waugh) and mentions some "dilapidations to the Ilchester estate" and "smooth operators". That fits with how the source is used in the article, except I'm not sure if Betjeman, Green, or both signed the letter.
Richard Harris: a sporting life -- also only snippet view available, but the page is about Liberace, so looks okay, with AGF in effect. This work is cited 4 times; the first three could be bundled per WP:CITE (obviously not a critical change).
"The ceiling is divided into coffered compartments by square beams, and features symbols of the Sun, the planets and the signs of the Zodiac." Is the paraphrasing from the source a bit tight here?
If this is acceptable as a re-work, someone please copy to the article. "Highly decorated square beams divided the ceiling into compartments. The ceiling was covered with enameled iron which was decorated with Zodiac symbols and the Sun and its planets." We hope (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"made of ivory, with sapphires for eyes; it was later stolen.[22][53]" Reference 53 does not mention the theft (unless I missed it), but the layout of the citations suggests that it does. Should the 53 go just after the semicolon? I'm a relative newbie at FAC and don't know how tight the sourcing needs to be. --Gaff (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Journal is from 1916; as a result, it's Public domain in the US since it dates before 1923 and full view of the magazine is allowed at HathiTrust--provided you're in the US.
As the description notes, the figure was meant to have wings which were both gilded and enameled. Apparently the "Fame" figure was not complete at the time of Burges' death. The source goes on to say that the figure was easily removable as it was on a hook. It looks like this might have made it easier to steal--the extra detail might be welcome here. We hope (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The country life article has snippet views. Using creative google searches I did manage to confirm the 3 refs to page 604 and 2-3 other spot checks on this one. There are six citations to this text without page numbers assigned (ref #37 currently).
More to come. As others have mentioned, it would be good to have some spot checks from the offline text sources. --Gaff (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)--Gaff (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've done multiple spot checks (a dozen or so) of internet accessible sources and they look okay. I and somebody else suggested some spot checks from the offline text sources, since the bulk of information comes from those sources. That's all I can offer, for now, due to other real-life obligations.--Gaff (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new at this and not really sure what is needed. That is something I can ask about on talk page rather than gumming up the works here. --Gaff (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm told that a spot check is only usually done if it's the editor's first nom. I don't see the harm in doing one personally. I don't think another person really needs to do one unless Ian wants them too!♦ Dr. Blofeld20:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – For full disclosure, I have made numerous edits to the article in response to FAC suggestions ([58]), but I haven't added anything or otherwise made any substantive changes. I think the article is well-written, comprehensive, and well-researched. It's also neutral, stable, and well-illustrated. It follows the style guidelines and stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. Well done, all! This is an excellent article and a fine contribution to Wikipedia. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work, I enjoyed reading that. One minor query, a Bronze figure - made of ivory? I thought Bronze figures were made of a copper tin alloy.ϢereSpielChequers21:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Completed the description of the figure: " its hands and face were made of ivory, with sapphires for eyes; it was later stolen." We hope (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HMS Illustrious was the first British armoured carrier and served throughout WWII. Her aircraft sank one Italian battleship and damaged two others at Taranto in 1940 before she was badly damaged by German dive bombers in early 1941. She saw service against the Vichy French and Japanese later in the war before the accumulated effects of battle damage forced her to return home in mid-1945. After the war she served as the Home Fleet's trials and training carrier for most of her subsequent career before being scrapped in 1956. As always I'm interested in cleaning up my prose, catching any lingering AmEnglish spellings and any unexplained jargon. The article passed a MilHist A-class review back in December and I believe that it meets the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support your very well-done article. I can hardly find anything to mention, but I did find these points:
Subsequent operations in the Mediterranean: "Illustrious was not struck during these attacks but was near-missed several times and the resulting shock waves from their detonations, dislodged enough hull plating to cause an immediate 5-degree list, crack the cast-iron foundations of her port turbine, and damage other machinery." It seems to switch between tenses and is a bit confusing to me.
You're right about the tenses.
In the Indian Ocean: "...between India and the UK and the British were worried that French would accede to occupation of the island..." This seems like it should be "the French" or "France."
Indeed.
Also, as a minor critique, I noticed that there is some inconsistency regarding numbers. For example, I found both "8" and "eight" used at various points in the article (besides names, dates and quotes).
The MOS demands the same treatment of numbers when dealing with similar things which can run afoul of the rule to spell out numbers smaller than 10. Thanks for your thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good to me. I'm not familiar with the MOS requirements for nautical things, so I'll take your word on that. Nicely done! This is one of the more informative ship articles I've read on here.-RHM22 (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I only have a few quibbles.
Infobox
The list of honours and awards includes three Napoleonic War ones.
By the RN's reckoning, battle honours belong to the name of the ship, not any particular ship of that name.
Wartime
"were probably added as well at this time" "at this time" seems redundant.
Given that none of my sources tell when the outriggers were added, this is my best guess, so I'd be more inclined to drop the "as well" here rather than the other phrase. See how it reads now.
"Her complement was sharply reduced by her change in role and she retained her aft 4.5-inch guns." The conjunction "and" bothers me for some reason, feeling a "but" or "though" is needed somehow.
"Though" could work, but I don't think a "but" would because it's not contradicting anything in the sentence. All in all, I still think I prefer "and" because the clause is referring to something a couple of sentences earlier.
Construction
"had to be ordered from Vítkovice Mining and Iron Corporation in Czechoslovakia." I'd move this earlier in the paragraph and date it. Just because Czechoslovakia wasn't selling much to the UK beginning in 1939 ...
The armour for one of her sisters (Indomitable?) also had to be purchased from the Czechs in early 1939 and they had the devil of a time getting it into Britain without the Germans seizing it, IIRC.
"She conducted preliminary flying trials" last vessel mentioned was Poolgarth.
Good catch
" her Fulmars" last vessel mentioned was Corallo
And again.
"could accommodate" perhaps "could launch"?
Good idea.
Subsequent
"Norfolk Navy Yard on 12 May for permanent repairs" I would mention that this is in the United States
"Rear Admiral Aircraft Carriers, Eastern Fleet, Rear Admiral Denis Boyd" can the double dose of "Rear Admiral" be avoided?
It does seem a bit much.
Pacific
"She arrived on 10 February and her damage was repaired when she entered the Captain Cook Dock in the Garden Island Dockyard the next day ..." it sounds almost like the damage was repaired on 11 February.
Taking a look now - did browse before...now where was I.....
I'd add who Felicity Holland and Jane O'Sullivan are (are they film critics, sociologists etc.) - helps understand the context.
ditto Brian Joyce
Otherwise looks pretty good overall WRT prose and comprehensiveness.
Thanks for your comments. The journal article itself does not introduce them, though google reveals that Jane is an academic. I think it's reasonable to assume that Felicity would be also, so i've described them as such. Brian Joyce is introduced in the 'Theatrical origins' sub-section. Freikorp (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"his relationships with both Rachel and Diane": I think it would be more natural to say "Rachel and his mother".
I though about this while I was writing the plot; what concerns me is the rest of the plot section. I.e should "Jared joins Diane and Cherie" and "Despite learning of Diane's illness" be changed to "Jared joins his mother and Cherie" and "Depite learning of his mother's illness" respectively? I thought I should be consistent, and it didn't sound right to keep using 'mother'. Your thoughts? Freikorp (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The film's critique of criminal masculinity, however, undermines the status of previously celebrated masculine lawbreakers in Australian history and cinema": why "however"?
Can you give a date, even an approximate one, for Joyce's initial approach to Enright? If not I think this sequence should be in past perfect to make it clearer to the reader that we're going back in time prior to the film. A date for the Sydney Theatre Company commission to Enright would be good too.
I don't think so, but i'll keep looking. Leigh was murdered in November 1989. The draft for the play was completed in "early 1992". I can't find anything that narrows down the time that Joyce approached Enright anymore than that. Freikorp (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"By December 1995, Vidler was working with Enright as an unofficial script editor. He stated that they were having trouble finding financing for the film." This is a little bit proselinish; if the source supports the two things happening around the same time, can we combine them? "By December 1995, Vidler was working with Enright as an unofficial script editor, although they were having trouble finding financing for the film" or something similar. Unless there's some reason to doubt Vidler's reliability we don't need to ascribe this to him inline.
"her attempts failed after the film received government financial backing;[16] the film received financing and assistance from the New South Wales Film and Television Office.[1]" A bit repetitive; could we make this "her attempts failed after the film received financial backing from the New South Wales Film and Television Office", and combine the refs?
The "Film adaptation" section doesn't say the film was shot in Stockton explicitly. It mentions that Stockton landmarks were visible, which made me wonder if they had been intercut with wherever it had been shot; then I remembered the lead mentioning that it was shot in the town where the murder took place. Then the controversy is mentioned. It wouldn't hurt to make it explicit, either by adding a few words to the place where you mention the Stockton landmarks, or by moving that section below the mention of the controversy, and making it explicit at the point that the controversy is mentioned.
There are a dozen or so uses of "stated" or "stating", which are often unnecessary and are very stilted when overused. They're appropriate for a reporting a statement, particularly an official statement, and a very occasional use is OK, but there are too many here. Just using "said" is usually OK, "said" is an almost invisible word; but if you want variation, you can sometimes rephrase to avoid needing to use a verb at all -- for example, see my suggested rewording above about having trouble finding financing, which eliminates a "stated".
I haven't looked at the sources yet. Some of the later sections, in addition to the issue with "stated" mentioned above, also feel a little listy; there's a bit of recitation of what various people said, rather than anything more directed. It's hard to avoid this with reception sections, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Thanks for your comments. I've attempted to address everything so far. If you give me some specific examples of 'listy' stuff that you'd like changed i'll see what I can do. :) Freikorp (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to get back to this sooner. In a plane on the way to a cabin with unknown cell reception so may not get to it this week, but will do so as soon as I can. Thanks for the review offer; do you have a humanities background? I have radiocarbon dating at FAC at the moment and would love to get a non-technical reader's opinion. The only reviewer so far who does not, as far as I know, come from a technical or scientific background raised a comment I'd like to get more opinions on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: No worries take your time. Can't say i'm overly familiar with that subject, so I can give you a nontechnical opinion on it :). (Bolding so I get everyone else's attention) I won't have computer access from March 21-29, and I don't think i'll have time to look at your FAC before I go, though hopefully it will still be open when I get back. If so i'll have a good look at it. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More comments.
I think the lead is a little short. You don't mention the questions of historical accuracy, for example, and I think there's room for a little more detail on some of the areas you do summarize.
"The film's portrayal of the rape and murder at a teenage party": I think "a rape" or just "rape" would be better than "the", which doesn't really work with "a party".
'concluding it was "almost guaranteed to find a distributor in the U.S"; the film never found an American distributor': I think some connective tissue is needed between the critical comment and the contradicting note. Perhaps 'concluding it was "almost guaranteed to find a distributor in the U.S", though in the event the film never received American distribution'.
"Brien theorised that some of the condemnation the film received may have been due to public frustration with the legal system, as the film achieves justice for the victim, whereas no one was ever convicted of raping Leigh; citing the film as an example of why sensitivity and care must be taken when fictionalising an actual crime". The last clause, beginning "citing the film", is intended to be parallel with "theorised", but it's so far away from it that it's hard for the reader to see that, and the punctuation doesn't help. How about "Brien theorised that some of the condemnation the film received may have been due to public frustration with the legal system, as the film achieves justice for the victim, whereas no one was ever convicted of raping Leigh. Brien cited the film as an example of why sensitivity and care must be taken when fictionalising an actual crime"?
All the changes look OK, except that I copyedited the lead a little -- I think the way you had it was redundant: if you say Leigh's family opposed it, you don't need to say the film-makers didn't have the victim's family's consent. I've supported above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think citing Infobox data is necessary, if it is cited in the article
Most features articled tend to at least have a citation in the infobox for box office revenue; i'll wait for a second opinion on this :) Freikorp (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to broaden your research a little bit (I only see eight sources).
There's only 8 book and journal sources, but there's also 13 online sources, 11 offline newspaper sources and 2 citations from the film itself. Freikorp (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support
I read this top to bottom and made minor changes; see the article history. I have no complaints or suggestions past what I just changed, this looks very good.--ɱ(talk · vbm)18:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is being nominated to join the relatively short tradition of other Sounders winning Open Cups ('09, '10, and '11. It should meet or exceed the FA standards set by other articles seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Showcase.
As the primary author, my usual shortfall is general copy editing. I feel that any issues can be addressed in a timely manner. Also, I used Sounder At Heart as a source in a few instances. The sources from that site relied on writers who have press badges and not general user generated content. Please let me know if any improvement is needed to reach FA and I will be on it immediately. Cptnono (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
“Pappa, who had just returned from international duty with the Guatemala,”
“There first big chance came”,
”Casey received a yellow card at the 57th minute an was later replaced”
”were able to effectively counter Philadelphia's attempts attack in the second half”
”While being praised as good tactics by one Sports Illustrated writer, Schmid told reporters that the decision to not start Martins due to a muscle strain.”
This now reads "While being praised as good tactics by a Sports Illustrated writer, Schmid told reporters that the decision to not start Martins was due to a muscle strain" which brings up some new issues:
Presumably the intent is that Schmid was being praised for good tactics (not as good tactics), and that Martins was not started due to a muscle strain (not the decision...was due to a muscle strain).
The relationship between the two halves of the sentence is not immediately clear. A quote from Liviu Bird clarifies what Martins not starting has to do with good tactics—but the quote is back in the Extra time section. Suggest moving it from Extra time to Post-match for better context; the quote is technically postgame commentary anyway.
Image captions should not end with a full stop unless the caption forms a complete sentence (and none of the current captions does).
This is not an exhaustive list; someone needs to go through from top to bottom for grammar, spelling, etc. That being said, though, the copyedit that’s needed here is not a particularly intensive one, since there is not a lot of complicated language or nuance in this sort of article, so it should be pretty fast and easy once you find someone to do it. Maralia (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look. The GA reviewer did a good job then I added a few lines (most are the ones you mentioned). Nothing like a good 'ol FAC to remind me that I suck at typing. All mentioned are fixed. Also, I removed the periods from the captions. I tend to agree with you but have added them in articles I work on due to the insistence of other reviews at GA and FA. Can you point me to something in the MoS for future discussions?Cptnono (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RE the image caption punctuation question, you can refer people to these:
MOS:FULLSTOP: "Sentence fragments in captions or lists should in most cases not end with a period."
MOS:CAPTION: "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely sentence fragments that should not end with a period. If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, all sentences and any sentence fragments in that caption should end with a period."
This part of MOS is fairly longstanding policy; off the top of my head, I'd say it's been in force since at least 2008, so reviewers should be familiar with it. People do tend to trip up over that last bit concerning multiple sentences/fragments, though. Maralia (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I will take another look, but my eyesight is pretty compromised right now (busted glasses, lousy contacts) so it might take me a few days to make it through. Maralia (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh... take your time. I tried using Gorilla glue on my glasses the other day and they are now half broken with glue dried on the lenses.Cptnono (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely in better shape after Coemgenus' review. I made a few minor copyediting fixes tonight. Some other remaining issues:
“Attendance at PPL Park would only be 15,256, the lowest for an Open Cup final in six years.” - This sentence is out of place in the Pre-match/Venue selection section.
“The Open Cup is not held in as high regard as winning the MLS but it is still considered an important achievement.” - by "winning the MLS" you mean winning the MLS Cup, yes?
”The 2014 Open Cup was an exceptional challenge due to the MLS season being interrupted by the World Cup.” - Doesn't this happen every four years? 'Exceptional' might be overkill.
”The home team kept control of the first half and continued creating chances into Seattle's penalty area.” - Can you reword this? Google finds almost no other uses of "creating chances into" and I gotta agree it's super weird.
”As runners-up, the Union was awarded $60,000.” - This mixes singular (was awarded) and plural (runners-up). In the US, we would go with the singular "As runner-up, the Union was awarded".
Revisiting at nom's request. I have watched with interest as Mike Christie worked his magic here; you are both to be commended as the prose is vastly improved! I made a few very minor copyediting tweaks, as well as two larger changes:
I tweaked the phrasing at the end of the Sounders section regarding Cooper, because I couldn't parse how he "ended the tournament with a total of 13 goals" yet "netted six in 2014 alone". I added the clarification that it was 13 career Open Cup goals, per the cited source.
I reorganized the last paragraph of the Post-match section so that it now ends with the "It's a shame" quote, which (it turns out) was a comment on all three issues (not just tv broadcast and attendance, but also the livestream situation). I think it makes for a stronger ending, too.
"While both teams created multiple chances, Philadelphia unsuccessfully attempted a comeback and took firm control of the match at the end." This seems to suggest the Union took control of the match at the end. Didn't they lose? Or do you mean they looked to be in control before the start of extra time?
"Philadelphia were almost eliminated..." I understand the convention in European soccer is to treat teams as plurals, but in American sports we treat them as a singular noun ("Philadelphia was almost...") Unless there's some differing convention in U.S. soccer I don't know about.
"Philadelphia had never been to a final and it was their first chance at winning silverware since their inception 5 years earlier." You say this earlier. Maybe something shorter, like "For Philadelphia, it represented their first-ever chance at a trophy."
"depth that could traverse" I don't think "traverse" is right here. "Withstand" maybe. "Survive"?
"withstand" works.
"The all-time record between the clubs was Philadelphia with two wins and Seattle with three." A little fuzzy. Maybe something like "The all-time record between the clubs stood at 3–2 in favor of Seattle."
Agreed. Fixed.
First half
"The Union began to pick up the pace with Andrew Wenger playing wide left. He was continuously able to get past Yedlin to the byline or cut back for shots." I think the prose could be improved with more active verbs, less "to be" and "to have". For example, the sentences quoted above might be better tightened up as "The Union began to pick up the pace with Andrew Wenger playing wide left, where he repeatedly passed Yedlin to the byline or cut back for shots." See what I mean? The verb we're concerned about is "to pass" -- Wenger passed Yedlin -- not that he was able to pass him.
Active voice also helps clear up the writing. Instead of "No substitutions were made at halftime", you could say "Neither team made a substitution at halftime." More direct.
"...when he was able to make header on the Sounders goal." Here we have the "was able" problem again, and I'm also not sure of the expression "make header". I watch a lot of soccer, but I'm no expert on the terminology.
I think one of my favorite sports writers uses it or something. Ripped a bunch out.
Post-match
"The final was Philadelphia's first chance at a championship in their five-year history." You could probably lose this line -- you've said it twice already.
"The performance was poor enough..." This sounds like you're talking about the teams' performance. I assume you mean the internet feed didn't work right? Should clarify.
These changes look good. I made a few more copyedits--if you think they change the meaning of what you've written, please feel free to revert.
In the Seattle section, you link the 2010 and 2011 finals, but not 2009. Is there no article for it? If not, it wouldn't be wrong to include a redlink to encourage creation of that article.
At the moment I don't think the prose is at FA level. I'm not going to oppose immediately, but I think some work remains to be done here. The problem is not that there are grammatical errors or specific places with poorly chosen words or phrasing; it's that the writing is often flat and lacking any rhythm. For example, the lead -- particularly the second and third paragraphs -- reads like a staccato series of short sentences, with no flow between them. If you look at the lead of hermeneutic style, or German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations, two other FACs I've recently reviewed, I think you can see that those paragraphs flow more smoothly -- the sentences are varied in rhythm and length, and it sounds more like a narrative. To put it another way, a well written lead sounds like someone interesting explaining the topic to you; this article's lead sounds like someone reciting some of the key facts. Try reading the lead out loud while imagining that you're telling an acquaintance about the game. Would you use this phrasing? I doubt it; you'd use connected sentences, and you'd make it into a narrative. That's what needs to be done here.
The body is in better shape than the lead, but there are instances of this problem throughout; see the Seattle Sounders section for more examples. I have read the article twice, once fairly closely and once skimming, and didn't see much else wrong other than the prose style; I'll come back and take another look once the prose is addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Thanks for taking a look. I'm admittedly flat and boring when writing prose to keep it to the point. The fear of being to over the top in my fandom is always there and I am not Charles Dickens (CenturyLink Field is probably boring as hell to anyone who isn't interested in minor details about architecture and the local teams). Did you have ideas on lines that can be improved during your read throughs? I know that asking you to rewrite entire sections is out of the question but I would love any thoughts since it would help this and other articles.Cptnono (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind doing some rewriting for you, but I can't promise I'll have time. One thing you could try -- and I'm serious about this; I think it will help -- is to read through the lead a couple of times to get into your mind the key points, and then roleplay explaining the game to someone else, and video or record yourself doing the explanation. Explain it as you would in real life -- you'd try to make it interesting, rather than just reciting the facts. Transcribe that version and see how it differs from what you've got at the moment. Try it on just one of the paragraphs and see how it goes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Well wow, you were right. I like the boring prose of The World Almanac but decided to recite it in the bathroom mirror instead. It is a couple feet away from my apartment's front door so now I sound crazy (it is all bachelor's on my floor of the apartment and I know at least 3 of the neighbors are soccer fans). I played with two paragraphs in the lead and the Sounders road to the final section. What do you think? Obviously I want to get this to FA now but this was a good learning experience for other articles even if this has to go through a second round in the future. Cptnono (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a big improvement! I'm glad that helped. I'll take another look tonight or tomorrow; in the meantime, can you tell me if you've gone through the whole article to fix similar issues? The places I mentioned were the ones where I noticed the problem most, but you might try reading the whole article out loud to yourself and see if you spot other places where it could be improved. I'll do a copyedit pass when you tell me you're done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hit the Match section a bit. I'll make another pass through (tonight or tomorrow depending on beer intake and House of Cards binging). Thanks again. Your input is actually more appreciated than a !vote.Cptnono (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you're using dashes for "shoot—out"; I've changed these to hyphens, but is there a convention I don't know about that says a dash should be used?
"player-depleted schedule": does this mean that there were several players injured and unavailable because of a packed schedule? I think this needs some clarification if so; it's a bit too much shorthand for the average reader.
The thought was broken into two sentences. I tried to expand the second. Fixed?
"Defensively, Philadelphia's Edu had become their best defender": I'd rephrase this to avoid having "defensively" and "defender" so close together. Perhaps "Defensively, Edu had become Philadelphia's strongest player"?
I did half a dozen spotchecks of the source text vs. the article. I made one change where the phrasing was pretty close to the original. One more fix needed -- "the shot lacked power and was easily saved": the source doesn't say the shot lacked power. That's the only issue left, other than the citation date issue I mentioned above.
On the assumption you'll fix both these minor issues, support. To the coords: I checked six sources and found one fairly close paraphrase, which I fixed, and two cases where a minor fact wasn't in the source (both are in my notes just above). In both cases the source did support the major information being provided, so I'm not too concerned, but I'd suggest asking for another spotcheck just to make sure these were isolated issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as sports match articles go, this looks to be in fairly good shape. I've done sourcing spot-checks. No significant red flags, just minor issues as picked up below:
"Immediately following the goal" - the source says it was within minutes, not immediately.
Changed to "shortly after"
It was the eleventh time the region hosted the final and the first since 1994" - what is "the region"?
Added greater Philadelphia per the source
"The Open Cup is not held in as high regard as the MLS Cup but it is still considered an important achievement." - is the view that this is sufficiently uncontentious not to require sourcing?
Pretty uncontentious. Added a source used earlier in the article "The Major League Soccer season might often take priority over the U.S. Open Cup, but a trophy's a trophy"
"Seattle was considered [by whom?] the favorite" - all we have is one pundit calling them the (admittedly "clear") favourite. Maybe consider buttressing this with the Turner Sports source, which also calls them favourites, and just say "Seattle was the favourite"?
Fixed
It seems a bit much to use this source for the statement that "Philadelphia's Casey, Le Toux, and Cristian Maidana were considered [by whom?] significant attacking threats". All it says about Casey and Le Toux is that Maidana's work might leave them "space".
"Sounders coach Schmid made some surprising choices in his starting lineup." - source? It is hard to see what is "surprising" when the following two sentences give perfectly rational explanations for the omissions of Cooper and Pappas.
I think I was focusing too much on Martins. Changed to "Sounders coach Schmid made adjustments to the usual starting lineup for the game."
"Nevertheless, the Sounders came out attacking" - why "Nevertheless"?
"Although lacking those playmakers," Fixed?
"to continuously find and connect passes with each other" - wrong adverb, I think (perhaps try "frequently") and a split infinitive.
" to complete key passes with each other" Fixed?
"remove the "interim" tag from his title as head coach" - the "tag" language is that of the cited journalist; I don't think we should copy it.
3 separate refs use the term "interim tag" (ctl+f in the references). I suppose it could be changed to "designation" but I kind of prefer "tag" in this case (kind of like how the NFL does franchise tags maybe?)
"at the 60th minute" - is "at" the correct preposition?
Not uncommon vernacular in this sense but "in" works if it causes any confusion. Fixed.
@Mkativerata: Thanks for taking a look. I addressed everything but the "tag" wording due to the number of sources who use it in that sense. It could be changed but I wanted additional input from you still. Were the other issues fixed properly? There is always a chance I made them worse!Cptnono (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm happy to support. I can live with the Casey/Le Toux and "interim tag" sentences not being changed. Just one minor consequential thing:
"Sounders coach Schmid made adjustments to the usual starting lineup for the game." - this makes it sound like it was the "usual starting lineup for the game". Perhaps "Sounders coach Schmid made adjustments to his usual starting lineup. [no mention of 'for the game']" would be simpler and clearer. I'd then suggest putting the Pappa and Martin sentence before the Cooper sentence, because Pappa and Martin were usual members of the starting lineup; Cooper seems not to have been. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good day. Praemonitus (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Yus Sorry that my brain and fingers are shaky now. Parcly Taxel 01:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
